Jharkhand High Court
Kishun Sao vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 4 September, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
(2025:JHHC:26860-DB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
--------
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 87 of 1998 (R)
------
(Against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated
02.04.1998 passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih, in
Sessions Trial No. 169 of 1992.)
------
1. Kishun Sao, son of Ishwar Sao
2. Bhatu Sao, son of Late Budhan Sao
3. Kunjo Pandit, son of Late Bhakar Pandit.
4. Bhola Sao, son of Teju Sao.
5. Digambar Pandit, son of Bishun Pandit.
All residents of Village-Mangora Baghnala, P.S.-Birni, District-
Giridih.
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) ... ... Respondent
----------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
.....
For the Appellants : Mr. B.M. Tripathy, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Naveen Jaiswal, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl. P.P.
.....
st
C.A.V./Reserved on 21 August, 2025 Pronounced on 04/09/2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.:
1. The instant appeal, under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
has been preferred against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence
both dated 02.04.1998 passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge,
Giridih, in Sessions Trial No. 169 of 1992 arising out of Birni P.S. Case No.
97 of 1990, whereby and whereunder, the appellant no.1 Kishun Sao has
been convicted under section 302 and 148 IPC; appellant no.2 Bhatu Sao
has been convicted under Section 302/149 and 147 of IPC; appellant no.3
Kunjo Pandit has been convicted under Section 302/149 and 147 of IPC;
appellant no.4 Bhola Sao has been convicted under section 341 and 323 IPC;
appellant no. 5 Digambar Pandit has been convicted under Sections 341 IPC.
1 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 87 of 1998 (R)
So far as sentence is concerned, appellant no.1 Kishun Sao has been
sentenced to under imprisonment for life undergo section 302 IPC and R.I
for one year under section 148 IPC; appellant no.2 Bhatu Sao has been
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302/149 and R.I
for six months under section 147 of IPC; appellant no.3 Kunjo Pandit has
been has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section
302/149 and R.I for six months under section 147 of IPC; appellant no.4
Bhola Sao has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for fifteen days under section
341 and R.I for six months under section 323 IPC and Appellant no. 5
Digambar Pandit has been sentenced to undergo undergo R.I. for fifteen
days under Sections 341 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run
concurrently.
Factual Matrix
2. The prosecution story in brief is required to be referred herein, which is as
under:
The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan dated 11.07.1990 of
the informant Deoki Pandit (deceased) which was given in an injured
condition to S.I. G.D. Singh of Birni P.S recorded at P.H.C., Birni, on
11.07.1990 at 8 hours.
Deoki Pandit (deceased) has stated in his fardbeyan that on
11.07.1990 in the morning at 6:00 to 6:15 am, Ishwar Sao of his village was
ploughing in his field and when he went to stop him, accused persons
Kishun Sao, Basudeo Sao, Ganesh Sao, Bhatu Sao, Gujar Sao and Kunjo
Pandit came armed with talwar, tangi, lathi and surrounded him and started
assaulting him. Kishun Sao assaulted him on his neck by talwar, Basudeo
Sao assaulted on his left shoulder by a talwar, Ganesh Sao assaulted on his
head by a talwar and Ishwar Sao assaulted him by tangi on his left leg and
Bhatu Sao, Gujar Sao and Kunjo Sao assaulted him by lathi as a result he
sustained injury. On his halla, his brother Jagdish Pandit came there then
the accused persons started assaulting him. Deoki Pandit (deceased) further
stated that seeing him bleeding from the neck and lying, accused believed
that he had died and they fled away. Thereafter, villagers, his father and
brother-in-law (bahnoi) Budhan Pandit came there and with the help of other
2 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 87 of 1998 (R)
people, they brought him to hospital where his treatment was going on. It is
also stated that last night the aforesaid accused persons took part in a
meeting held by Sukhdeo Hazam and thereafter, all the accused persons slept
in a room in village Malgoda, which is adjacent to his village and from this it
appears that Sukhdeo Hazam had held the meeting for this occurrence as
whenever he holds meeting some occurrence occurred in the village.
3. On the basis of the fardbeyan, Birni P.S. Case No. 97 of 1990 dated
11.07.1990 was instituted against the accused persons u/s 147, 148, 149,
447, 323, 324, 325, 307 and 120B IPC and later on, when the aforesaid
Deoki Pandit died, Section 302 IPC was added vide order dated 13.07.1990.
The police, after investigation, submitted charge-sheet and cognizance of the
offences were taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions for
trial.
4. Charges were framed against Kishun Sao, Basudeo Sao, Ganesh Sao, Ishwar
Sao, Bhatu Sao, Kunjo Pandit and Gujar Sao under section 302 of IPC;
Sukhdeo Hazam, Chitranjan Pandit, Digambar Pandit, Premchand Pandit
and Bhola Pandit were charged under section 302/149 of IPC; Premchand
Pandit and Bhola Pandit were further charged under section 323 of IPC;
Chitranjan Pandit, Digambar Pandit, Premchand Pandit and Bhola Pandit
were separately charged under section 341 of IPC; Bhatu Sao, Gujar sao,
Kunjo Pandit, Chitranjan Pandit, Digambar Pandit, Premchand Pandit, Bhola
Pandit and Sukhdeo Hazam were further charged under section 147 IPC and
Kishun Sao, Basudeo Sao, Ganesh Sao and Ishwar Sao were also charged
under section 148 of IPC.
5. Thereafter, after the framing of charges, trial proceeded and on conclusion of
the trial, the appellants were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid, hence,
this appeal.
6. The aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence is under challenge
herein.
Submission of the learned counsel for the Appellants:
7. Learned counsel for the appellants has taken the following grounds for
interfering with the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the
impugned judgment:
3 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 87 of 1998 (R)
(i) It is submitted that the learned trial court has committed error in law
as well as on facts in its finding while passing the judgment
impugned.
(ii) It is also submitted that on the one hand the judgment impugned is
silent in giving reasons for not accepting the evidence of defence
witnesses and on the other hand, the learned trial court has not given
any speaking reasoning for accepting the contradictory statements of
the prosecution witnesses as gospel truth.
(iii) It has also been submitted that the learned trial court has failed to take
into consideration the post-mortem report as no human being shall
speak after more than 02 hours of sustaining incised wound measuring
4" x 1½" x spinal column deep with profuse bleeding from the back of
the neck behind the left of both ears. Since the muscle of back of the
neck, blood vessels inter vertebral disc and cervical sixth vertibra
were cut with damage cut to spinal cord at cervical sixth vertibra
fracture, a man with such injuries will immediately go in shock and
severe hemorrhage. Due to 6th vertibra cut, along with the damage to
spinal cord, there shall be no support in the head and it shall dangle in
the front side which will cause twisting of muscles blocking wind pipe
as well as the vocal cord and, in that situation, no human being can
utter a single word.
As such, it is submitted that the learned trial court ought to have
held the fardbeyan of Deoki Pandit (deceased) and his dying
declaration as an impossibility due to his medical situation.
(iv) It is also submitted that the learned trial court has failed in
appreciating the evidence of P.W.-1, 3, 4 and 7 who claims to be the
eye witnesses since the aforesaid witnesses have deposed in their
testimonies that they were restrained by the accused persons to go
near the place of occurrence and the place of occurrence as alleged is
intervened by a high ridge and also by standing sugarcane plantations,
as such, it is impossible for the said witnesses to have seen the
occurrence.
4 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 87 of 1998 (R)
(v) It is further submitted that the prosecution has not examined the
important charge-sheeted witnesses, namely, Budhan Pandit, Jasia
Devi, Bhola pandit, Nilkanth Sao, Kanglu Pandit, Digan Mahto,
Suresh Kumar Sao and Poddar Sao @ Ram Naresh Sao and non-
examination the aforesaid witnesses has led to non-appreciation of the
facts in right perspective.
(vi) It is further submitted that the P.W.-10, the investigating officer, has
stated that he had made entry in the station diary at 7:30 am on
11.07.1990 on the information received from Primary Health Centre,
Birni that a person has been brought in injured condition whereas, the
P.W.-9 in his evidence has stated that injured Deoki Pandit was
brought to the Primary Health Centre, Birni at 8:20 am, as such, there
is serious discrepancy in their statement which creates doubt in the
case that the appellants have been implicated in this case due to some
previous enmity.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants, based upon the aforesaid grounds,
has submitted that the learned trial court has not taken into consideration the
aforesaid facts, as such, the impugned judgment requires interference, hence
not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Submission of learned counsel for the Respondent-State:
9. While defending the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the
learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has submitted that
there are as many as four eye witnesses in the case in hand who are P.W.-1,
3, 4 and 7 and these witnesses had seen the appellants assaulting the
deceased. Appellant no. 1 Kishun Sao had assaulted Deoki Pandit on the
back of his neck, which is supported by the post-mortem report Ext.-1 of the
deceased. Investigating officer P.W-10 has proved the place of occurrence.
P.W-11 B.D.O., Birni, had recorded the dying declaration of the deceased,
hence, the dying declaration of the deceased is trustworthy and reliable.
10. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State,
based upon the aforesaid premise, has submitted that the impugned judgment
does not suffer from any error, hence the instant appeal is fit to be dismissed.
5 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 87 of 1998 (R)
Analysis
11. Prosecution had examined altogether 12 witnesses of out whom P.W-1 is
Jagdish Pandit, who is brother of the deceased; P.W.-2 is Abdul Razaque;
P.W.-3 Pramila Kumari, who is the daughter of the deceased; P.W.-4 is
Nilkanth Sao; P.W.-5 is Dr. Ajit Kumar Sahay, who had conducted post-
mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Deoki Pandit; P.W.-6
is Surendra Kumar Rai, who is hearsay witness; P.W-7 is Bimala Devi, who
is the wife of the deceased; P.W.-8 is Gyandeo Rai; P.W.-9 is Dr. Subodh
Singh and P.W.-10 Girish Deo Singh, is the investigating officer of the case;
12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents
available on record as also the finding recorded by the trial court in the
impugned judgment.
13. We have also gone through the testimonies of the witnesses as available in
the LCR as also the exhibits appended therewith.
14. This Court before considering the argument advanced on behalf of the
parties is now proceeding to consider the testimonies of witnesses which
have been recorded by learned trial Court. The learned trial court during the
trial has altogether examined twelve prosecution witnesses and testimony of
the same is required to referred herein.
15. P.W.1 Jagdish Pandit has stated in his evidence that on 11.07.1990 at 6:00-
6:15 am in the morning he was in his house and he heard halla from field
side. He went behind his house in bari, there he saw Kishun Sao, Basudeo
Sao, Ganesh Sao, Ishwar Sao, Gujar Sao, Bhatu Sao, Kunjo Pandit was
assaulting his brother Deoki Pandit by lathi and talwar. When he tried to
save him then Chitranjan Pandit, Digambar Pandit, Bhola Sao and
Premchand Pandit surrounded him and restrained him from saving.
Premchand assaulted him with lathi on his left arm and Bhola Sao assaulted
him with lathi on his right rib. P.W-1 further stated that he saw from 10/15
cubit that Kishun Sao assaulted Deoki Pandit by sword on back side of his
neck, Basudeo assaulted on left shoulder and Ganesh Sao assaulted by talwar
on head and Ishwar assaulted by tangi on his left leg. Gujar Sao, Bhatu Sao
and Kunjo Pandit assaulted Deoki Pandit with lathi. P.W-1 further stated that
due to talwar blow, neck was cut and Deoki Pandit fell down. Deoki Pandit
6 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 87 of 1998 (R)
was taken to hospital and there, statement of Deoki Pandit was recorded by
daroga ji and daroga ji also saw his injury. B.D.O. was called and B.D.O.
had enquired from his brother. Doctor told them to take Deoki Pandit to
Giridih and then his brother was taken to Giridih but he died. P.W-1 further
stated that assault took place in his filed which is ten decimal.
It his cross-examination, P.W-1 has stated that bari, where the
ploughing was being done, is at a distance of 50 yard from his house.
16. P.W.-2 Abdul Razaque has stated in his evidence that on the date of
occurrence in the morning, he was in his filed and there he heard halla. He
ran and climbed on the medh of the pond and saw Kishun Sao, Basudeo Sao,
Ganesh Sao, Gujar Sao, Bhatu Sao, Bhola Sao, Kunjo Pandit, Chitranjan
Pandit and Digambar Pandit fleeing away from the place of occurrence.
Kishun Sao, Basudeo Sao and Ganesh Sao were armed with talwar. Ishwar
Sao was armed with tangi and Gujar Sao, Kunjo Pandit, Bhatu Sao and
Bhola Sao were armed with lathi and they were fleeing towards east. He
went to the place of occurrence and saw Deoki Pandit injured. Deoki Pandit
had sustained injury on his neck, head, leg and his neck was cut and little bit
separated. He saw Jagdish Pandit there. He, Jagdish Pandit, Jasia Devi and
Nilkanth Pandit took Deoki Pandit to home and then to hospital.
17. P.W.-3 Pramila Kumari, is daughter of the deceased. P.W-3 has stated in her
evidence that on the date of occurrence it was morning and she was at her
home with her mother. She heard halla from filed and she came out with her
mother and went towards east. She saw the accused Kishun Sao, Basudeo
Sao, Ganesh Sao, Ishwar Sao, Kunjo Pandit, Gujar Sao, Bhatu Sao were
assaulting her father. Her mother wanted to go over there but Premchand
Pandit and Bhola Sao prevented her and Bhola Sao showed farsa and told to
finish her if she goes there. Premchand Pandit pulled her hair and dashed her
on the ground. P.W-3 further stated Kishun Sao, Basudeo Sao and Ganesh
Sao were armed with talwar, Ishwar Sao was armed with tangi and Kunjo
and Bhatu Sao were armed with lathi. She has also stated that after the
accused persons fled away, she and her mother went to her father and saw
injuries on head, neck, shoulder and left leg of her father.
7 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 87 of 1998 (R)
18. P.W.-4 Nilkanth Sao has stated in his evidence that on the date of occurrence
at 6:00-6:15 am, he was ploughing his field then Deoki Pandit came there
and said that Ishwar Sao is ploughing his field and on that he said Deoki
Pandit to go home and he is going to enquire about this and then Deoki
Pandit went home. He enquired from Ishawar Sao, then, Ishawar Sao told
that he will plough the field. P.W-4 further stated that he saw many arms in
the field and he came to Deoki Pandit and told Deoki Pandit that there are
arms at the field and if he goes there, it may cause danger to him. Then,
Deoki Pandit told that he was going to plough another field. P.W-4 further
stated that he was going to his field, then Deoki Pandit went to another field
in south side and Deoki Pandit was following him. There was sugarcane
field and in the sugarcane field Chitranjan Pandit, Digambar Pandit and
Bhola Sao came and surrounded Deoki Pandit. In the field Ishawar Sao,
Kishun Sao, Ganesh Sao, Basudeo Sao, Gujar Sao, Bhatu Sao and Kunjo
Pandit were present there. Kishun Sao, Ganesh Sao and Basudeo Sao were
armed with sword and Kishun Sao gave sword blow on the neck of Deoki
Pandit, Ganesh Sao assaulted Deoki Pandit on his head, Basudeo Sao
assaulted Deoki Pandit on his left shoulder and Ishwar Sao assaulted Deoki
Pandit on his left leg by tangi. Thereafter, accused persons started assaulting
him. During the assault, family members of Deoki Pandit were coming to
save him but Chitranjan, Bhola Sao and Digambar restrained them and
thereafter accused persons fled away. When accused fled away then they
saw injury of Deoki Pandit. His neck was cut. He was taken to home on coat
then he was taken to Birni Hospital by Car and there Deoki Pandit gave
statement. Doctor told them to take him to Giridih, but, he died on the way
itself.
19. P.W-5 Dr. Ajit Kumar Sahay had conducted post-mortem examination on
the dead body of the deceased Deoki Pandit. Doctor had found following
ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased-
(i) incised wound 4" x 1½" x spinal column deep with bleeding
extensively in the back of neck behind level of both ears. Muscles of
the back of the neck, blood vessels, intervertebral disc and cervical
sixth vertebra were cut with damage cut to spinal cord at cervical sixth
vertebra fracture, dislocation present in the back of neck;
8 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 87 of 1998 (R)
(ii) incised wound 2 ½" x 1"x thoracic cavity deep left side inferior angle
of scapula left wound was bleeding.
20. Doctor opined that cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a
result of above ante-mortem injuries and all the above injuries were caused
by sharp cutting weapon and the time elapsed since death within 12 hours.
Doctor had proved the post-mortem report which was marked as Ext.-1.
21. P.W-7 is Bimala Devi, who is the wife of the deceased. P.W-7 has stated in
her evidence that on the date of occurrence at 6 am in the morning, she was
at her home. She heard halla of her husband and she came out of her house
and went towards the bari from were sound was coming. She saw Kishun
Sao, Basudeo Sao, Ganesh Sao, Ishwar Sao, Gujar Sao had surrounded her
husband and were assaulting her husband. Kishun Sao, Ganesh Sao and
Basudeo Sao were armed with sword. Kishun Sao assaulted her husband
with sword on his neck, Ganesh Sao and Basudeo Sao assaulted with sword
on head and shoulder respectively and Ishwar saw assaulted with tangi on
his leg. Gujar Sao, Bhatu Sao and Kunjo Pandit assaulted her husband by
lathi. P.W-7 further stated that she was going to her husband but Chitranjan
Pandit, Digambar Pandit and Premchand Pandit and Bhol Sao stopped her
and Premchand assaulted her pulling her hair but, she reached upto a
distance of 25 yard from her husband. Thereafter, her husband was taken to
home and then to Hospital.
22. P.W.-8 Gyandeo Rai has stated in his evidence that on the date of occurrence
he was at his home. In the morning, Jagdish Pandit came along with
Nilkanth Pandit taking Deoki Pandit on a cot and Deoki Pandit was injured.
They told him to take Deoki Pandit to hospital and told that Ishwar and his
men had assaulted Deoki Pandit. P.W-8 further stated that they proceeded to
Birni Hospital by car and on the way, on being asked, Deoki Pandit told that
Kishun Sao and Ganesh Sao assaulted him with sword and Ishwar Sao
assaulted him with tangi. He was taken to Birni Hospital and there Dr.
Subodh Kumar had treated Deoki Pandit. In course of treatment daroga ji
and B.D.O came and daroga ji took the statement of Deoki Pandit. Seeing
the condition of doctor Deoki Pandit, doctor referred him to Giridih
9 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 87 of 1998 (R)
Hospital, then they took Deoki Pandit to Giridih Hospital, where Dr. Jitendra
declared him dead.
23. P.W.-9 is Dr. Subodh Singh and he has stated in his evidence that on
11.07.1990, he was posted at Birni Primary Health Centre on the post of in-
charge Medical Officer. On that day at about 8:20 am, a patient had arrived
in the health centre in the injured condition and he had got requisition from
police station for his treatment. Original copy of the requisition was kept and
in the carbon copy, dresser Sree Nath had signed on it. P.W-9 has identified
the signature of Sree Nath on the requisition, which was marked as Ext.-2.
P.W.-9 further stated that he had treated the injured Deoki Pandit, but, as his
condition was serious, hence he was referred to Giridih Sadar Hospital.
Officer-in-charge had given application for recording the dying declaration
of the injured. P.W-9 has identified the carbon-copy of the aforesaid
application for recording the dying declaration which bears the signature of
officer-in-charge Girish Deo Singh. The aforesaid application for recording
the dying declaration was marked as Ext.-3. P.W.-9 further stated that he had
recorded the statement of Deoki Pandit, in the presence of the B.D.O. and on
the dictation of B.D.O. He had written the statement of Deoki Pandit as
B.D.O was writing statement, but, B.D.O. was facing difficulty in writing
the statement. P.W.-9 had proved dying declaration/statement which was
marked as Ext.-4. Signature on the dying declaration/statement of B.D.O and
P.W.-9 were marked as Ext.-2/a and Ext.-2/b respectively.
24. P.W.-10 Girish Deo Singh, is the investigating officer of the case.
Investigating officer has stated in his evidence that on 11.07.1990, he was
posted as officer-in-charge at Birni police station. On information of doctor
from Public Health Centre, Birni, he had entered Sanha no. 193 and
proceeded for Birni Hospital. He recorded the fardbeyan and issued injury
slip. Investigating officer had also stated that on seeing the condition of the
injured he requested the B.D.O. to record the dying declaration of the
deceased. Investigating officer had proved the fardbeyan of Deoki Pandit
which was marked as Ext.-5.
25. P.W.-11 Taslim Ahmad, is the B.D.O. who has stated in his evidence that on
11.07.1990, he was posted as B.D.O., Birni. He had got request letter from
10 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 87 of 1998 (R)
the officer-in-charge to record the dying declaration of Deoki Pandit and
hence, he had gone to Primary Health Centre, Birni and there he took the
statement of Deoki Pandit. Deoki Pandit had given his statement before him
and in presence of Dr. Subodh Singh (P.W-9). P.W-11 further stated that
doctor had written the statement and he had attested the statement. Statement
was given in his presence and Deoki Pandit had given his L.T.I. in his
presence. In his cross-examination, P.W-11 said that Deoki Pandit was
injured and he had injury on his head, neck and at five other places. To the
court question, P.W-11 stated that at the time of recording of the statement,
injured Deoki Pandit, was in position to make statement.
26. Defence had produced seven witnesses in in their defence out of whom
D.W.-1 Md. Nizamuddin is an Advocate Clerk; D.W-2 Dilip Kumar is an
Assistant at District Registration office; D.W-3 Bijay Kumar Sinha is taid;
D.W.-5 Dr. Kamleshwar Prasad is C.A.S at Sadar Hospital, Giridih; D.W-6
is Ishwar Sao who was one of the appellant in this case and D.W-7 is Md.
Ashfaque Mirza, an Advocate Commissioner.
27. The learned trial court had recorded the testimony of these defence witnesses
which are being referred herein as under.
28. D.W.-5 Dr. Kamleshwar Prasad, C.A.S at Sadar Hospital, Giridih, has stated
that survical vertebra is within the neck, altogether there are seven survical
vertebra. Spinal cord lies in spinal column. Spinal cords is connected with
brain. In injury no.1, it is mentioned incised wound of 4''x1½" x spinal
column deep, it suggests depth upto spinal column. If the spinal cord is cut at
the level of survical vertebra then, there is no question of life. If there is cut
of spinal cord then first servical vertebra will cut and then spinal column and
then spinal cord. If there is any injury on servical region, the patient will go
in shock immediately and he will be unable to speak anything. He will not
be in consciousness. D.W.-5 had also stated that there will be profuse
bleeding and if lungs is cut air will come which is called pneumothorax and
if there is pneumothorax, the patient will not be able to speak at all. He had
also stated that if excessive blood was discharged it might cause shock and
haemorrhage at the spot.
11 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 87 of 1998 (R)
29. D.W.-6 Ishwar Sao, has stated about the enmity with Deoki Pandit and had
also given the detailed description of the place of occurrence and its
surrounding.
30. Apart from these defence witnesses, defence had also produced documentary
evidence. Ext.-A to A/3 are rent receipts; sale deed executed by Bhola
Kumhar, which is Ext.-B and Ext.-C; Formal FIR and fardbeyan of Birni
P.S. Case No. 69/1989 which were marked as Ext.-D and Ext.-E
respectively; Ext.-F is signature of Sukhdeo Sharma on the aforesaid
fardbeyan; Ext.-G is map prepared by D.W-7; Ext.-H is deposition of Mt.
Khiriya in case no. 1336/41; Ext.-I is deposition of Bhola Kumhar in case
no.881/69; Ext.-J is deposition of Mathura Rai, in case no.881/69; Ext.-K is
charge framed by J.M., to show that Ishwar Teli has alias name of Latal Teli
and station Diary Entry dated 11.07.1990 of Birni P.S. was also exhibited.
31. Hence, from the testimonies as reproduced above and the fardbeyan of the
Deoki Pandit (deceased), it has come that on 11.07.1990 in the morning,
Deoki Pandit had told accused Ishwar Sao not to plough his field to which
accused persons Kishun Sao, Basudeo Sao, Ganesh Sao, Bhatu Sao, Gujar
Sao and Kunjo Pandit came armed with talwar, tangi, lathi and surrounded
Deoki Pandit and started assaulting him, as a result, Deoki Pandit sustained
injuries on the back side of his neck, head, left shoulder and other parts of
the body. Deoki Pandit was rushed to Birni Primary Hospital where his
statement was recorded on the direction of B.D.O. But, seeing the serious
condition of Deoki Pandit, doctor at Birni Primary Hospital referred him to
Giridih Sadar Hospital, but, Deoki Pandit on the way to Giridih Sadar
Hospital, succumbed to injuries.
32. On the above allegation, ten accused persons including the appellants herein
were tried for one or the others charges under sections
341/323/147/148/302/149 and one of the accused Sukhdeo Hazam was
charged under section 302/149 and 120B of the IPC. Accused Sukhdeo
Hazam was acquitted of the charges, but, the remaining nine accused
persons were convicted in one or the others sections under Sections
341/323/147/148/302 and 302/149 of IPC.
12 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 87 of 1998 (R)
33. The nine convicted accused persons had filed appeal in this case out of
which appellant no. 2 Ishwar Sao, appellant no. 3 Gujar Sao, appellant no. 7
Premchand Pandit and appellant no. 8 Chittaranjan Pandit, died during the
pendency of the appeal, hence, their appeal stand abated by the order of this
court dated 07.01.2025. The appeal of the surviving appellants remains and
has to be decided.
34. The admitted fact is that-
(1) On 11.07.1990 in the morning, Deoki Pandit(deceased) had forbade
accused Ishwar Sao not to plough his field.
(2) Accused persons surrounded Deoki Pandit and assaulted him with
deadly weapon more specifically sword due to which Deoki Pandit
succumbed to injuries.
35. Learned counsel for the appellants has mainly taken the ground that (i)
learned trial court has failed to take into consideration the post-mortem
report as no human being shall speak after sustaining incised wound
measuring 4" x 11/2" spinal column deep with profuse bleeding from the
back of the neck behind the left of both ears and (ii) learned trial court ought
to have held the dying declaration as an impossibility due to the medical
situation of the deceased Deoki Pandit.
36. In the backdrop of the aforesaid discussions, this Court in the instant case is
to consider following issues:
(i) Whether dying declaration of the deceased Deoki Pandit is truthful,
voluntary and trustworthy?
(ii) Whether the medical opinion given by the defence witness D.W.-5,
who is a doctor, that given the critical medical condition of the
deceased, deceased cannot speak, will prevail?
37. Since, all the aforesaid issues are inextricably interlinked, the same are being
discussed and decided hereinbelow together.
38. But, before proceeding further, it would be fruitful to see the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court rendered on the issue of dying declaration. Hon'ble
Apex Court in Purshottam Chopra and Another v. State (Government of
NCT of Delhi) reported in (2020) 11 SCC 489, has summarized the
13 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 87 of 1998 (R)
principles relating to recording of dying declaration and its admissibility and
reliability at paragraph-21 of the judgment. Paragraph-21 Purshottam
Chopra (Supra) is quoted herein below for ready reference-
"21. For what has been noticed hereinabove, some of the principles relating
to recording of dying declaration and its admissibility and reliability could
be usefully summed up as under:
21.1. A dying declaration could be the sole basis of conviction even without
corroboration, if it inspires confidence of the court.
21.2. The court should be satisfied that the declarant was in a fit state of
mind at the time of making the statement; and that it was a voluntary
statement, which was not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination.
21.3. Where a dying declaration is suspicious or is suffering from any
infirmity such as want of fit state of mind of the declarant or of like nature,
it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence.
21.4. When the eyewitnesses affirm that the deceased was not in a fit and
conscious state to make the statement, the medical opinion cannot prevail.
21.5. The law does not provide as to who could record dying declaration
nor there is any prescribed format or procedure for the same but the person
recording dying declaration must be satisfied that the maker is in a fit state
of mind and is capable of making the statement.
21.6. Although presence of a Magistrate is not absolutely necessary for
recording of a dying declaration but to ensure authenticity and credibility, it
is expected that a Magistrate be requested to record such dying declaration
and/or attestation be obtained from other persons present at the time of
recording the dying declaration.
21.7. As regards a burns case, the percentage and degree of burns would
not, by itself, be decisive of the credibility of dying declaration; and the
decisive factor would be the quality of evidence about the fit and conscious
state of the declarant to make the statement.
21.8. If after careful scrutiny, the court finds the statement placed as dying
declaration to be voluntary and also finds it coherent and consistent, there
is no legal impediment in recording conviction on its basis even without
corroboration."
39. Now, coming to the first issue i.e. whether dying declaration of the deceased
Deoki Pandit is truthful, voluntary and trustworthy. We find that prosecution
has relied upon two dying declarations of the deceased Deoki Pandit, said to
have been made after the assault on him-
(i) First dying declaration Ext.-5, was given to the P.W.-10 Girish Deo
Singh, who is the investigating officer of the case, and
(ii) Second dying declaration Ext.-4 was given to the P.W.-11 Taslim
Ahmad, who is B.D.O., Birni.
14 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 87 of 1998 (R)
40. Here, it is pertinent to note that in the case in hand, deposition of three
prosecution witnesses- P.W.-9 Dr. Subodh Singh, who is in-charge Medical
Officer, Birni Primary Health Centre; investigating officer P.W.-10 Girish
Deo Singh and P.W.-11 Taslim Ahmad, who is the B.D.O.,Birni, are
material witnesses as far as the dying declaration of the deceased Deoki
Pandit is concerned.
Re: First Dying Declaration
41. Now, coming to the first dying declaration Ext.-5. We find that first dying
declaration is the fardebyan of the deceased Deoki Pandit, which was
recorded on 11.07.1990 at 8:00 am in the morning by P.W-10 S.I. Girish
Deo Singh, which was treated as FIR.
42. At this juncture it would be pertinent to note the judgment delivered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dharampal and others vs. State of UP
reported in (2008) 17 SCC 337 wherein Apex Court has held that the FIR
lodged by deceased would attain the character and legal status of dying
declaration, if the victim dies before his examination in the Court.
43. Investigating officer P.W-10 Girish Deo Singh has stated in his examination-
in-chief that on 11.07.1990, he was officer-in- charge of Birni police station.
He received information from doctor of Public Health Centre, Birni that an
injured has come in serious condition. He made entry as sanha No. 193 and
proceeded for Birni Hospital and recorded the fardbeyan Ext.-5 of Deoki
Pandit. Investigating officer also deposed that he issued injury slip and
seeing the serious condition of the injured he requisitioned B.D.O. for
recording dying declaration. Then, B.D.O. came and B.D.O. recorded the
dying declaration of Deoki Pandit. In his cross-examination investigating
officer has stated that in the station diary he had entered time as 7:30 am
morning and there was injury on neck and head of Deoki Pandit. Deoki
Pandit was speaking and he wrote as said by Deoki Pandit.
Re: Second Dying Declaration
44. The second dying declaration Ext.-4, of the deceased Deoki Pandit was
recorded by P.W.-11 Taslim Ahmad, who is the B.D.O., Birni, along with
P.W-11 Dr. Subodh Singh, who is in-charge Medical Officer at Birni
Primary Health Centre.
15 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 87 of 1998 (R)
45. Now, coming to the deposition of P.W.-9 Dr. Subodh Singh, who is in-
charge Medical Officer, Birni Primary Health Centre. P.W-9 who has
deposed that on 11.07.1990, he was posted at Birni Primary Health Centre
on the post of in-charge Medical Officer. On that day at about 8:20 am, a
patient had arrived in the health centre in the injured condition and he had
got requisition from police for his treatment. He had treated the injured
Deoki Pandit, but, as his condition was serious, hence he was referred to
Giridih Sadar Hospital. Officer-in-charge had given application Ext.-3 for
recording the dying declaration of the injured. P.W.-9 also stated that he had
recorded the statement of Deoki Pandit, in the presence of the B.D.O. and on
the dictation of B.D.O. He had written the statement of Deoki Pandit, as
B.D.O was writing statement, but, B.D.O. was facing difficulty in writing
the statement. P.W.-9 had proved dying declaration/statement which was
marked as Ext.-4. In his cross-examination P.W.-9 Dr. Subodh Singh had
deposed that B.D.O., Birni, had told him that he will ask the question and
told him to record it in writing.
46. Further, P.W.-11 Taslim Ahmad, who is B.D.O. has stated in his evidence
that on 11.07.1990, he was posted at B.D.O., Birni. He received request
letter from the officer-in-charge to record the dying declaration of Deoki
Pandit and hence, he had gone to Primary Health Centre, Birni and there he
took the statement of Deoki Pandit. Deoki Pandit had given his statement
before him and in presence of Dr. Subodh Singh (P.W-9). P.W-11 further
stated that doctor had written the statement and he had attested the
statement. Statement was given in his presence and Deoki Pandit had put his
L.T.I. in his presence. To the court question, P.W-11 stated that at the time
of recording of the statement, injured Deoki Pandit, was in position to make
statement.
47. Hence, on conjoint reading of both the dying declaration of the deceased
Deoki Pandit, we find that both the dying declaration Ext.-4 and Ext.-5 were
recorded independently. Dying declaration Ext.-4 was recorded by P.W.-11
Taslim Ahmad, who is the B.D.O., Birni, along with P.W-9 Dr. Subodh
Singh, who is in-charge Medical Officer at Birni Primary Health Centre.
P.W-9 had deposed that he had written the statement of Deoki Pandit, in the
16 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 87 of 1998 (R)
presence of the B.D.O. and on the dictation of B.D.O., he had written the
statement of Deoki Pandit.
Likewise, P.W.-11 Taslim Ahmad, who is the B.D.O., had also stated
that doctor had written the statement and he had attested the statement.
Statement was given in his presence and Deoki Pandit had put his L.T.I. in
his presence. On perusal of the second dying declaration Ext.-4, we find that
dying declaration of deceased Deoki Pandit, bears the signatures of P.W.-11
Taslim Ahmad, B.D.O., and P.W.-9 Dr. Subodh Singh, in-charge Medical
Officer, Birni Primary Health Centre and both the signatures were marked as
Ext.-2/a and Ext.-2/b respectively.
48. Hence, from the discussion made in the preceding paragraph, we are of the
view that both the dying declaration Ext.-4 and Ext.-5 of the deceased Deoki
Pandit are truthful, voluntary and trustworthy.
Re: Whether the medical opinion given by the defence witness D.W.-5,
who is doctor, that given the critical medical condition of the deceased,
deceased cannot speak, will prevail?
49. Coming to the second issue i.e. whether the medical opinion given by the
defence witness D.W.-5, who is doctor, that given the critical medical
condition of the deceased, deceased cannot speak, will prevail? Learned
counsel for the appellants has also argued that no human being shall speak
after sustaining incised wound measuring 4" x 1½" x spinal column deep
with profuse bleeding from the back of the neck and hence, dying
declaration is an impossibility due to the medical situation of the deceased
Deoki Pandit.
50. In this regard, we find that defence had examined D.W.-5 Dr. Kamleshwar
Prasad, C.A.S., at Sadar Hospital, Giridih. D.W.-5 had stated that if there is
any injury on servical region, the patient will go in shock immediately and
he will be unable to speak anything and he will not be in consciousness.
51. Hence, D.W-5 Doctor expressed his view that due to nature of injuries
sustained by the deceased, deceased was not in position to speak. But, we
find that P.W.-8 Gyandeo Rai had deposed that he had spoken to the
deceased Deoki Pandit and deceased had told the name of the appellants to
17 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 87 of 1998 (R)
him, likewise P.W-11 B.D.O., Birni has also deposed that the deceased was
in position to make statement.
52. So, in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, this Court is to decide
whether the medical opinion of the doctor D.W-5 or the evidence of P.W-8
and P.W-11, regarding the ability of the deceased to make statement before
his death, will prevail.
53. This question has already been decided by the Constitution Bench of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Laxman v. State of Maharashtra reported in
(2002) 6 SCC 710. In the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph-3
has laid down that normally, the court in order to satisfy whether the
deceased was in a fit mental condition to make the dying declaration looks
up to the medical opinion. But where the eyewitnesses state that the
deceased was in a fit and conscious state to make the declaration, the
medical opinion will not prevail. Paragraph-3 of Laxman (supra) case is
quoted hereinbelow for ready reference-
"3. The juristic theory regarding acceptability of a dying declaration is that
such declaration is made in extremity, when the party is at the point of death
and when every hope of this world is gone, when every motive to falsehood
is silenced, and the man is induced by the most powerful consideration to
speak only the truth. Notwithstanding the same, great caution must be
exercised in considering the weight to be given to this species of evidence on
account of the existence of many circumstances which may affect their truth.
The situation in which a man is on the deathbed is so solemn and serene, is
the reason in law to accept the veracity of his statement. It is for this reason
the requirements of oath and cross-examination are dispensed with. Since
the accused has no power of cross-examination, the courts insist that the
dying declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire full confidence of
the court in its truthfulness and correctness. The court, however, has always
to be on guard to see that the statement of the deceased was not as a result
of either tutoring or prompting or a product of imagination. The court also
must further decide that the deceased was in a fit state of mind and had the
opportunity to observe and identify the assailant. Normally, therefore, the
court in order to satisfy whether the deceased was in a fit mental condition
to make the dying declaration looks up to the medical opinion. But where
the eyewitnesses state that the deceased was in a fit and conscious state to
make the declaration, the medical opinion will not prevail, nor can it be
said that since there is no certification of the doctor as to the fitness of the
mind of the declarant, the dying declaration is not acceptable. A dying
declaration can be oral or in writing and any adequate method of
communication whether by words or by signs or otherwise will suffice
provided the indication is positive and definite. In most cases, however,
such statements are made orally before death ensues and is reduced to
writing by someone like a Magistrate or a doctor or a police officer. When it
18 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 87 of 1998 (R)
is recorded, no oath is necessary nor is the presence of a Magistrate
absolutely necessary, although to assure authenticity it is usual to call a
Magistrate, if available for recording the statement of a man about to die.
There is no requirement of law that a dying declaration must necessarily be
made to a Magistrate and when such statement is recorded by a Magistrate
there is no specified statutory form for such recording. Consequently, what
evidential value or weight has to be attached to such statement necessarily
depends on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. What is
essentially required is that the person who records a dying declaration must
be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind. Where it is proved
by the testimony of the Magistrate that the declarant was fit to make the
statement even without examination by the doctor the declaration can be
acted upon provided the court ultimately holds the same to be voluntary and
truthful. A certification by the doctor is essentially a rule of caution and
therefore the voluntary and truthful nature of the declaration can be
established otherwise."
(emphasis supplied)
[
54. Now, once again, coming to the deposition of P.W.-8 Gyandeo Rai, we find
that P.W.-8 had deposed that he accompanied Deoki Pandit and they along
with others had proceeded to Birni Hospital by car and on the way, on being
asked to Deoki Pandit, Deoki Pandit told that Kishun Sao and Ganesh Sao
assaulted him with sword and Ishwar Sao assaulted him with tangi.
55. We find that P.W-8 is an independent witness as nowhere from his
testimony, it appears that he had any enmity with the appellants. Further,
P.W-11 B.D.O, had recorded the dying declaration of Deoki Pandit and to
the court question, P.W-11 B.D.O., Birni, had stated that at the time of
recording of the statement, injured Deoki Pandit, was in position to make
statement. Here, it is pertinent to note that P.W.-9 Dr. Subodh Singh had
proved dying declaration/statement which was marked as Ext.-4. In his
cross-examination P.W.-9 Dr. Subodh Singh had deposed that B.D.O., Birni,
had told him that he will ask the question and told him to record it in writing.
56. Hence, from the testimony of P.W.-8 Gyandeo Rai and P.W-11 B.D.O,
Birni, it leaves no room for doubt that injured Deoki pandit was in a position
to speak and relying on Laxman (supra) case, in the present case medical
opinion given by the doctor D.W-5, will not prevail. So, the contention of
the learned counsel for the appellant that dying declaration is an
impossibility due to the medical situation of the deceased Deoki Pandit, is
not tenable. Rather, this Court is of the view that the deceased Deoki Pandit
19 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 87 of 1998 (R)
was in a position to speak and was in a fit state of mind to give his dying
declaration.
Analysis of the individual guilt of appellants herein
57. Before proceeding to analyse the individual guilt of the appellants herein, it
would be necessary to reiterate the assailants that has figured in the
evidence. In the present case, ten accused persons were tried for offence
under Sections 302, 302/149, 323, 147, 148 of IPC. In the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses, it has come that on the day of occurrence accused
Kishun Sao, Basudeo Sao, Ganesh Sao, Bhatu Sao, Gujar Sao and Kunjo
Pandit came armed with talwar, tangi, lathi and surrounded the deceased
Deoki Pandit and started assaulting him. Accused Chitranjan Pandit,
Digamber Pandit, Premchand Pandit and Bhola Pandit had restrained the
informant side from going to the place of occurrence and had also assaulted
the deceased Deoki Pandit and deceased wife P.W-7.
58. Coming to the question of death of Deokhi Pandit, we find that investigating
officer of the case P.W.-10 Girish Deo Singh has deposed that place of
occurrence is behind the house the deceased, which is bari and field of the
deceased.
59. P.W.-1 Jagdish Pandit, who is the brother of the deceased had deposed that
on hearing halla he had rushed to bari, behind his house and saw from a
distance of 10/15 cubit that accused Kishun Sao assaulted the deceased with
sword on the back of his neck. P.W.-1 was cross-examined on the manner of
assault on deceased by accused Kishun Sao, but, in cross-examination,
P.W.-1 was not shaken.
60. P.W.-7 Bimala Devi, is the wife of the deceased and she had deposed that on
hearing halla, she rushed towards the place of occurrence and saw Kishun
Sao giving sword blow on the neck of her husband.
61. P.W.-5 Dr. Ajit Kumar Sahay, who had conducted post-mortem examination
on the dead body of the deceased Deoki Pandit, had found two ante-mortem
injuries on the body of the deceased-
(i) incised wound 4" x 1½" x spinal column deep with bleeding
extensively in the back of neck behind level of both ears. Muscles of
20 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 87 of 1998 (R)
the back of the neck, blood vessels, intervertebral disc and cervical
sixth vertebra were cut with damage cut to spinal cord at cervical sixth
vertebra fracture, dislocation present in the back of neck;
(ii) incised wound 2 ½" x 1"x thoracic cavity deep left side inferior angle
of scapula left wound was bleeding.
62. P.W-5 Dr. Ajit Kumar Sahay, opined that cause of death was due to shock
and haemorrhage as a result of above ante-mortem injuries and all the above
injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon and the time elapsed since
death within 12 hours.
63. Hence, from the evidence of eye witnesses P.W.-1 Jagdish Pandit and P.W-7
Bimala Devi, we find that P.W-1 and P.W-7 are eye witnesses to the
occurrence on assault to Deoki Pandit. Both P.W-1 and P.W-7 have deposed
that appellant no.1 Kishun Sao had assaulted Deoki Pandit on his neck,
which is corroborated by post-mortem repot Ext.-1, wherein P.W-5 Dr. Ajit
Kumar Sahay had found -incised wound 4" x 1½" x spinal column deep in
back of neck behind level of ears. Hence, ocular evidence of eye witnesses
P.W-1 and P.W-7 as to assault on Deoki Pandit by appellant no. 1 Kishun
Sao, is corroborated by the medical evidence of doctor.
64. Therefore, prosecution has proved the charges under Sections 302 and 148
IPC against appellant no. 1 Kishun Sao, beyond reasonable doubt.
65. Appellant no.2 Bhatu Sao and appellant no.3 Kunjo Pandit have been
convicted under Sections 302/149 and 147 of IPC. But, P.W.-1 Jagdish
Pandit, who is an eye-witness to the assault on Deoki Pandit has deposed
that Kunjo Pandit and Bhatu Sao had assaulted Deoki Pandit, with lathi.
Hence, apart from this evidence there is no evidence against the Appellant
no.2 Bhatu Sao and appellant no.3 Kunjo Pandit as to inflicting fatal blow on
the deceased.
66. So, prosecution has failed to prove the charge under section 302/149 of IPC
against Appellant no.2 Bhatu Sao and appellant no.3 Kunjo Pandit, beyond
reasonable doubt. Hence, conviction of Appellant no.2 Bhatu Sao and
appellant no.3 Kunjo Pandit under section 302/149 of IPC is set aside and is
modified to Section 323 of IPC. But, conviction of Appellant no.2 Bhatu Sao
21 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 87 of 1998 (R)
and appellant no.3 Kunjo Pandit under Section 147 of IPC is sustained and
upheld.
67. Now, coming to the conviction of appellant no.4 Bhola Sao. Appellant no.4
Bhola Sao has been convicted under Sections 341 and 323 IPC. P.W.-1
Jagdish Pandit, who is the brother of the deceased had stated in his
examination-in -chief that Bhola Sao had surrounded him and assaulted him
on his rib. P.W-7 Bimla Devi, who is the wife of deceased had also deposed
that when she was running towards her husband then Bhola Sao, had
restrained her.
68. Hence, impugned judgment of conviction passed against appellant no.4
Bhola Sao for his conviction under section 341 and 323 IPC are hereby
sustained and upheld.
69. So far as conviction of appellant no. 5 Digambar Pandit under Section 341
IPC, is concerned, from the evidence, we find that P.W.-1 Jagdish Pandit has
deposed that when he went to save Deoki Pandit, accused Digambar Pandit
surrounded him restrained him from saving the deceased. P.W.-7 Bimla
Devi, who is the wife of deceased had also deposed that when she was
running towards her husband then Digambar Pandit, had restrained her.
70. Hence, impugned judgment of conviction passed against appellant no.5
Digambar Pandit for his conviction under section 341 IPC is also hereby
sustained and upheld.
Conclusion:
71. Accordingly, on the basis of discussion made hereinabove, we are of the
view that the impugned Judgment of conviction and order of sentence both
dated 02.04.1998 passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih,
in Sessions Trial No. 169 of 1992 arising out of Birni P.S. Case No. 97 of
1990, whereby and whereunder, the appellant no.1 Kishun Sao has been
convicted under Sections 302 and 148 IPC requires no interference and is
hereby sustained and upheld.
72. Consequent upon dismissal of the appeal preferred by appellant no.1 Kishun
Sao, since he is enjoying the suspension of sentence after order passed by
this Court directing him to be released during pendency of the appeal, bail
22 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 87 of 1998 (R)
bond of appellant no.1 Kishun Sao is cancelled and he is directed to
surrender before the learned trial court for serving out the sentence passed
against him.
73. Needless to say, that if appellant no.1 Kishun Sao will not surrender, the trial
court will take endeavours for securing custody of the appellant to serve out
the sentence as passed by the learned trial court.
74. Conviction of Appellant no.2 Bhatu Sao and appellant no.3 Kunjo Pandit
under Section 302/149 of IPC is set aside and is modified to Section 323 of
IPC. But, conviction of Appellant no.2 Bhatu Sao and appellant no.3 Kunjo
Pandit under 147 of IPC is sustained and upheld.
75. On the question of sentence of Appellant no.2 Bhatu Sao and appellant no.3
Kunjo Pandit for their conviction under 323 and 147 of IPC, we are inclined
to modify the sentence of imprisonment of aappellant no.2 Bhatu Sao and
appellant no.3 Kunjo Pandit to the period already undergone. Appellant no.2
Bhatu Sao and appellant no.3 Kunjo Pandit are discharged from their
liabilities of their bail bond.
76. Impugned judgment of conviction passed against appellant no.4 Bhola Sao
for his conviction under Sections 341 and 323 IPC are hereby sustained and
upheld.
77. On the question of sentence against appellant no.4 Bhola Sao for his
conviction under Sections 341 and 323 IPC, we are inclined to modify the
sentence of imprisonment of appellant no.4 Bhola Sao to the period already
undergone. Appellant no.4 Bhola Sao is discharged from his liability of bail
bond.
78. Impugned judgment of conviction passed against appellant no. 5 Digambar
Pandit for his conviction under section 341 IPC is hereby sustained and
upheld.
79. On the question of sentence of appellant no. 5 Digambar Pandit for his
conviction under section 341 IPC, we are inclined to modify the sentence of
imprisonment of appellant no. 5 Digambar Pandit to the period already
undergone. Appellant no. 5 Digambar Pandit is discharged from his liability
of bail bond.
23 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 87 of 1998 (R)
80. Accordingly, the instant criminal appeal being Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 87 of
1998 (R), stands dismissed with above modifications in conviction and in
sentence.
81. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
82. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith,
along with a copy of this Judgment.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
I agree,
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated: 04/09/2025
Saurabh /A.F.R.
24 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 87 of 1998 (R)
