Jharkhand High Court
Vijay Singh Son Of Late Laxmi Singh ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 October, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
2025:JHHC:32358-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 632 of 2002
......
[Against the Judgment of conviction dated 21.08.2002 and order of sentence
dated 22.08.2002, passed by learned 1st Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Court, Garhwa in Sessions Trial No.182 of 1987/T.R.
No.01 of 2001]
......
Vijay Singh son of Late Laxmi Singh resident of Village Medhna
P.S. and District Garhwa.
.... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
.... .... Respondent
......
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
......
For the Appellant : Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam, A.P.P.
......
C.A.V. on 08.10.2025 Pronounced on 17.10.2025
Per Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. We have already heard Mr. Yogesh Modi, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant and Mr. Fahad Allam, learned A.P.P.
appearing for the State.
2. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by above named sole
appellant for setting aside the judgment of his conviction dated
21.08.2002 and order of sentence dated 22.08.2002 passed by 1st
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.632 of 2002 P a g e 1 |10
2025:JHHC:32358-DB
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Garhwa
in S.T. No.182 of 1987 / T.R. No.01 of 2001, whereby and
whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offence
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal as depicted in the F.I.R.
lodged by one Ramdev Choudhary (P.W.4) is that on 24.02.1987
at about 08:00 a.m., while he was sitting at the house of Rekha
Choudhary along with his wife Etwaria Devi (P.W.9), meanwhile,
the accused Vijay Singh armed with lathi, started abusing to
Rekha Choudhary scolding as to why he did not come to build his
house wall on yesterday. Upon this, Rekha Choudhary replied that
due to some extraordinary circumstances, he could not attend his
work yesterday, due to this reason, the accused got enraged and
started assaulting to Rekha Choudhary by his lathi on chest, back
and arm resulting in serious injuries. Rekha Choudhary was being
brought to hospital but in the way he died. It is alleged that the
informant and wife of deceased raised alarm then villagers
Rajendra Singh, Guput Mallah and Sahdev Choudhary rushed
towards the place of occurrence and rescued the injured.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.632 of 2002 P a g e 2 |10
2025:JHHC:32358-DB
On the basis of above information, Garhwa P.S. Case No.20
of 1987 dated 24.02.1987 was registered for the offence under
Section 302 of the I.P.C. against the present appellant.
4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted
against the appellant for the aforesaid offence. Accordingly, the
case was committed to the Court of sessions where S.T. Case
No.182 of 1987 was registered. The present appellant denied the
charge levelled against him and claimed to be tried.
5. In the course of trial, altogether 11 witnesses were examined by
prosecution.
Apart from oral testimony of witnesses, following
documentary evidence has been adduced :-
Exhibit 1 : F.I.R.
Exhibit 2 & 2/1 : Signature on fardbeyan
Exhibit 3 : Photocopy of post-mortem report
6. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been
adduced by defence and the case is denial from occurrence and
false implication.
7. The learned trial court after examining the evidence available on
record found the appellant guilty for commission of offence under
Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him as stated above.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that out
of 11 witnesses examined in this case only P.W.4 and P.W.9 are
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.632 of 2002 P a g e 3 |10
2025:JHHC:32358-DB
alleged to be eye witnesses and other witnesses are of formal
nature. The learned trial court has committed serious error of law
in convicting the appellant on uncorroborated testimony of eye
witnesses whose evidences itself suffer from material
contradictions and discrepancies and only on the basis of
conjecture and surmises convicted the appellant under Section 302
of the I.P.C. Therefore, impugned judgment and order of
conviction and sentence of the appellant not sustainable under law
and fit to be set aside. The appellant deserves to be acquitted from
the charge levelled against him.
In the alternative, it is prayed that the deceased has sustained
multiple injuries like multiple abrasions, laceration and bruise on
outer left knee, right side of chest wall, left and right side of lower
back, left and right shoulder. The scalp and skull were intact,
therefore, no vital part of the body has been chosen for assaulting
which may indicate the intention of the appellant to commit
murder of the deceased rather it happened at the spur of moment
in a sudden manner. The post-mortem report of the deceased also
shows that cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage and
it is not specifically proved by Dr. Arbind Kumar (P.W.11) that
injuries sustained by the deceased were sufficient in ordinary
course of nature to cause death. Therefore, the ingredient of
offence under Section 300 of the I.P.C. which defines murder has
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.632 of 2002 P a g e 4 |10
2025:JHHC:32358-DB
not been proved in this case rather the facts proved leads to
commission of offence under Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. It is
further argued that the appellant has remained in custody about 6
years during trial of the case and has sufficiently been punished
for his guilt. Hence, conviction under Section 302 of the I.P.C. of
the appellant is absolutely unwarranted under law which is fit to
be set aside. Hence, conviction and sentence of the appellant
require to be altered/modified and the appellant may be held
guilty for the commission of offence under Section 304 Part II of
the I.P.C. and sentence is also required to be altered to the extent
of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant during trial
of the case which is about 6 years.
9. On the other hand, Mr. Fahad Allam, learned A.P.P. for the State
defending the impugned judgment and order of conviction and
sentence of the appellant has submitted that the appellant has
caused bodily injuries to the deceased without any excuse while
complaining as to why the deceased did not attend his duty
although reasonable explanations were offered by the deceased
but the appellant has given indiscriminate lathi blow to the
deceased causing instantaneous death. Hence, the offence comes
under the purview of murder and he has been rightly held guilty
and sentenced by the learned trial court which suffers from no
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.632 of 2002 P a g e 5 |10
2025:JHHC:32358-DB
illegality or infirmity calling for any interference by way of this
appeal which is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed.
10. It appears that altogether 11 witnesses were examined by the
prosecution out of them P.W.1 Ganesh Prasad has simply proved
the signature of Sri Nagendra Kr. Singh on the formal F.I.R. as
Ext.1, P.W.6 Jagdish Choudhary and P.W.7 Banshi Ram have
proved his signature on inquest report and P.W.8 is a seizure list
witness who admits his signature on seizure list of blood stained
soil seized from the P.O. P.W.3 Rajendra Singh has been declared
hostile by the prosecution and expressed no knowledge about the
occurrence. P.W.2 Ambika Choudhary, P.W.5 Guput Mallah and
P.W.10 Sahdev Choudhary are hearsay witnesses from the
informant and wife of deceased, therefore, their testimony cannot
be considered as substantive piece of evidence.
P.W.11 Dr. Arbind Kumar Yadav has formally proved the
post-mortem report of the deceased (Ext.3) due to non-availability
of Dr. Shiv Prasad Ram who has conducted autopsy on the dead
body of the deceased. The post-mortem report shows that the
deceased has sustained 13 injuries by lathi like multiple abrasions,
laceration and bruise on outer left knee, right side of chest wall,
left and right side of lower back, left and right shoulder and the
cause of death opined to be shock and haemorrhage as a result of
above injuries.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.632 of 2002 P a g e 6 |10
2025:JHHC:32358-DB
11. The whole prosecution case rests on the evidence of eye witnesses
namely P.W.4 Ramdev Choudhary (informant) and P.W.9 Etwaria
Devi who happens to be the wife of the deceased.
P.W.4 Ramdev Choudhary has deposed that Rekha
Choudhary was murdered about 14 years ago by Vijay Singh
(appellant) using a lathi. He witnessed the incident around 08:00
a.m. near Rekha Choudhary's house. He has further stated that
accused appellant came with a lathi and asked Rekha (deceased)
about why he had not come yesterday to build the wall of his
house. Rekha (deceased) replied that he had gone to his relative's
house, but Vijay Singh did not listen and hit him on both arms by
lathi, causing him to fall and then assaulted on his chest, stomach
and back by lathi. On hearing the noise, villagers Harihar Singh,
Guput Choudhary and Sahdev Choudhary arrived. This witness
went back to his village, informed the village Chowkidar, and
thereafter, they lifted Rekha Choudhary on a cot and were going
to Sadar Hospital, Garhwa for treatment, he died on the way.
P.W.9 Etwaria Devi is the wife of the deceased. According to
her evidence, at the relevant time of occurrence, she was present
with her husband. In the meantime, at around 8 a.m., the accused
Vijay Singh came and asked her husband to come for work. When
her husband replied that he was brushing his teeth and would
come soon, Vijay Singh started assaulting him with a lathi. When
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.632 of 2002 P a g e 7 |10
2025:JHHC:32358-DB
she raised an alarm, witnesses Sukan, Jugeshwar and Rajendra
arrived, but by then the accused had fled away. Thereafter, they
had taken her injured husband on a cot towards Garhwa Police
Station. However, he died near the river before reaching the
station. The evidence of both eye witnesses suffers from material
contradictions and discrepancies as regards genesis and manner of
occurrence rendering them to be not creditworthy.
12. We have given thoughtful consideration to overall facts proved in
this case. It appears that there are two eye witnesses, i.e., P.W.4
Ramdev Choudhary (informant) and P.W.9 Etwaria Devi (wife of
the deceased), who have claimed to have seen the accused
appellant while assaulting to Rekha Choudhary (deceased) by
lathi and due to sustaining injuries, he died. There is no material at
all in the cross-examination of these witnesses to disbelieve or
discredit their testimony. The place of occurrence, manner of
occurrence and involvement of present appellant in the alleged
offence has been proved beyond doubt by the prosecution which
also finds corroboration from the post-mortem report (Ext.3) of
the deceased that injuries were caused by hard and blunt
substance. The Investigating Officer of the case has not been
examined. We have also considered the nature and gravity of
assault given to the deceased and the weapon used by the accused
as well as the post-mortem report of the deceased that the death
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.632 of 2002 P a g e 8 |10
2025:JHHC:32358-DB
was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries
sustained by the deceased. There is no specific opinion that the
injuries sustained by deceased were sufficient to cause death in
ordinary course of nature. No injuries are on the vital part of the
body like head and appear to have been caused by mighty assault
by lathi. Therefore, required intention and knowledge as
propounded under Section 300 of the I.P.C. which defines the
offence of murder, does not appear to be proved by the
prosecution rather the case falls within the ambit of culpable
homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304
Part II of the I.P.C.
13. In view of aforesaid discussions and reasons, we are of the firm
view that the learned trial court has failed to properly appreciate
the overall scenario of the case and the legal principles attracting
the offence of murder and arrived at wrong conclusion while
holding the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 302 of
the I.P.C. In our considered view, conviction of appellant for the
offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. does not appear to be
warranted under law rather Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C is
attracted in this case. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned
judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant for the
offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. which is hereby altered to
under Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. Accordingly, appellant is
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.632 of 2002 P a g e 9 |10
2025:JHHC:32358-DB
held guilty for the offence under Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C.
instead of Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo
imprisonment already undergone by him during trial. In the result,
this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence
as stated above. Appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the
liability of bail bond and sureties are also discharged.
14. . Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
15. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent
back to concerned trial court for information and needful.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated: 17/10/2025
Sachin / NAFR
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.632 of 2002 P a g e 10 |10
