Jharkhand High Court
Nepuri Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 September, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
2025:JHHC:28187-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OFJHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 786 of 2002
[Against the judgment of conviction dated 28.09.2002 and order
of sentence dated 30.09.2002 passed by learned Sessions
Judge, Garhwa in Sessions Trial No. 1110 of 2001]
Nepuri Devi, wife of Ayodhaya Yadav, Resident of Village-
Bhojpur, Police Station- Nagar Untari, District- Garhwa.
.... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
With
Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 806 of 2002
1. Ayodhaya Yadav,
2. Birendra Yadav.
Both Sons of Sarju Yadav, resident of village- Bhojpur, Police
Station- Nagar Untari, District- Garhwa.
.... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
--------
For the Appellants : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate.
(In both Cases)
For the Respondents : Mr. Fahad Allam, A.P.P.
(In Cr.A. (DB) No. 786 of 2002)
: Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl.P.P.
(In Cr.A. (DB) No. 806 of 2002)
PRESENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
---------
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. On 14.08.2025 Pronounced On: 15/09/2025
Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava. J.
1. Both the appeals are arising out of common judgment
Page | 1
2025:JHHC:28187-DB
passed in S.T. No. 1110/2001 by learned Sessions
Judge, Garhwa whereby and whereunder all the above
named appellants have been held guilty for the offence
under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
2. We have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of
learned counsel for the appellants Mr. A.K. Kashyap as
well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned
Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and
perused the record.
Factual Matrix
3. Factual matrix giving rise to these appeals as per
Fardbeyan of one Chaturi Yadav dated 08.10.2001 is
that the informant along with Rajendra Yadav was going
to graze their cattle at the time of sun rise. It was about
05:30 AM while they were present at a distance of 500
yards from the place of occurrence, the informant heard
cries of his wife and proceeded to that direction and saw
that Ayodhya Yadav and Birendra Yadav were fleeing
towards north side. Ayodhya Yadav was having a tangi
in his hand. It is further alleged that a woman was also
running towards north- western side with empty hands.
When informant reached near his wife, he saw her in
injured condition sustaining severe injuries on her
forehead and she was not in a position to speak
Page | 2
2025:JHHC:28187-DB
anything. The informant has expressed his suspicion
that his wife has been killed due to Witch Craft. On last
Monday, at about 03:00 PM, informant come Belwa
Damar at his Pahi where his wife was also present and
disclosed that Ayodhya Yadav and his wife are adamant
to kill her, but due to intervention of Chitra and Ram
Chandra, they could not succeed. Thereafter, the
informant send his wife to Bhojpur from where in the
morning she was coming and the accused persons
Ayodhya Yadav and Birendra Yadav and Nepuri Devi
(wife of Ayodhya Yadav) in a pre-planned manner have
assaulted to his wife resulting in her death.
4. On the basis of above information Nagar Untari P.S.
Case No. 118/2001 was registered for the offence under
Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. After completion of
investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against all the
above named appellants who claimed to be tried. After
conclusion of trial, impugned judgment and order of
sentence was passed.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants assailing the
impugned judgment has vehemently argued that in the
F.I.R. there is simple allegation that Ayodhya Yadav was
seen fleeing having tangi in his hand and other two
appellants had no arms. The motive for the occurrence
was about suspicion of witch craft against the deceased
Page | 3
2025:JHHC:28187-DB
has not been found to be true even by the informant who
appointed a 'Dewas' and report was negative. Further
after completion of investigation, charge-sheet has not
been submitted for the offence under the provision of
Prevention of Witch Practices Act, 1999. Therefore, no
motive for the occurrence has been proved. The
prosecution during trial of the case materially
exaggerated and improved the story with a specific case
of assault given by the appellants to the deceased by
projecting some arms. It is also very strange that as per
prosecution the deceased was assaulted at the place of
occurrence by tangi, but no blood was found there and
nothing has been seized from the place of occurrence.
The manner of assault as deposed by the projected eye-
witnesses does not find corroboration from the post-
mortem report of the deceased. Therefore, except alleged
presence of appellants for the time being and fleeing
from the place of occurrence itself is not sufficient to
fasten with the liability of murder. The prosecution has
miserably failed to prove any specific overt act against
the appellants except suspicion. It is trite that the
suspicion howsoever strong it may be, cannot take place
of legal proof. In the instant case, the suspicion
expressed by the informant in the F.I.R. itself never
culminated into evidence against the appellants. The
Page | 4
2025:JHHC:28187-DB
learned trial court from the single circumstance
mentioned in the F.I.R. has inferred the guilt of the
appellants without appreciating the whole cumulative
effect of evidence led by the prosecution and passed the
judgment only on conjecture and surmises and some
assumptions and presumptions of fact. Therefore,
impugned judgment and order of conviction and
sentence of the appellants is absolutely illegal and
beyond the weight of evidence available on record and
liable to be set aside.
6. On the other hand learned A.P.Ps appearing for the
State has defending the impugned judgment of
conviction has submitted that the eye witnesses of
occurrence have proved the actual role and participation
of the appellants in the alleged offence of murder and
also the motive behind occurrence. Learned trial court
has very wisely appreciated in a threadbare manner, the
oral and documentary evidence adduced by the
prosecution and arrived at right conclusion, which
suffers from no illegality or infirmity calling for any
interference by way of this appeal, which is devoid of
merits and fit to be dismissed.
7. On the basis of respective submissions of the parties,
the only point for determination in these appeals is that
as to whether the impugned judgment of conviction and
Page | 5
2025:JHHC:28187-DB
sentence of appellants suffers from any error of law or
not ?
8. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined
altogether 08 (eight) witnesses in this case, and one
court witness has also been examined. Apart from oral
evidence following documentary evidence has also been
adduced:-
Exhibit- 1:- Signature of Sita Ram Yadav on inquest
report.
Exhibit- 1/1:- Signature of Dsrath Pd. Gupta on inquest
report.
Exhibit- 2:- Signature of Chaturi Yadav on Fard Beyan.
Exhibit- 3:- Post-mortem report.
Exhibit- 4:- Inquest Report.
Exhibit- 5:- Formal F.I.R.
9. On the other hand, no witness has been examined on
behalf of defence and no documentary evidence has been
adduced.
10. Before imparting our verdict on aforesaid point we have
to apprise with the testimonies of the witnesses
examined in this case.
P.W.1 Rajendra Yadav has stated that he went from his
house along with his cattle for grazing and reached near
Nimiya Dhoda, where Ayodhya Yadav and Birendra
Yadav and Nepuri Devi were already sitting and Kamla
Page | 6
2025:JHHC:28187-DB
Devi (deceased) was going to Bhojpur for attending a
party. In the midway, Ayodhya Yadav and Birendra
Yadav armed with tangi and lathi respectively and
Nepuri Devi having no arms but empty hands rushed
towards Kamla Devi to kill her and Ayodhya Prasad gave
a tangi blow on her head due to which she fell down,
thereafter, Birendra Yadav assaulted her by lathi and
Nepuri Devi assaulted on mouth by stone. Although, this
witness has given aforesaid vivid description of the
alleged crime, but in the last line of his testimony has
given a serious jolt to above evidence by saying that after
hearing hulla and alarm, he along with Chaturi Yadav
and Charitra Yadav arrived there, still assault was going
on with Kamla Devi. When this witness along with
Chaturi Yadav and Charitra Yadav attempted to
intervene and save the injured (Kamla Devi), then they
were also threatened be killed. Thereafter, accused
persons fled away.
From perusal of cross-examination of P.W.1, it
appears that his attention has been drawn towards the
statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
wherein he has not stated about any specific role to any
of the accused persons and not seen the actual assault
being given to the deceased. He was for the first time
interrogated by the police on the next day of the
Page | 7
2025:JHHC:28187-DB
occurrence in the morning near the dead body of Kamla
Devi. He also admits a very surprising story that at the
time of recording of statement at Nimiya Dhoda,
informant was not present at the spot rather he was at
Bhojpur which is situated at a distance of 2 kilometers.
He further states that the occurrence was informed by
his father Ishwari Yadav to the police. He also admits
that from the place of occurrence, the police station is
situated only at a distance of 06 kilometers. He further
states that he has seen the occurrence from a distance
of 50 steps. Ayodhya Yadav gave four tangi blows on the
head of the deceased, after one tangi blow she fell down,
he stroke further three tangi blows; one tangi blow was
inflicted on the middle of the head. The tangi was heavy
and big in size. Thereafter, Birendra Yadav gave two
lathi blows. He saw only two injuries to the deceased. He
has denied the suggestion of defence that one shepherd
namely Vijay Yadav informed them about a dead body
lying near the jungle, then they went to the place of
occurrence and thereafter, in connivance with informant
lodged this false case.
P.W.2 Sitaram Yadav is witness of inquest report and
has proved his signature as Exhibit-I.
P.W.3 Dashrath Prasad Gupta is also witness of inquest
report and has proved his signature as Exhibit-1/1. He
Page | 8
2025:JHHC:28187-DB
has no personal knowledge of the occurrence.
P.W.4 Chaturi Yadav is the informant of this case.
According to his evidence, on the date of occurrence at
about 05:30 AM, he was going to Nimiya Dhoda for
grazing cattle meanwhile he heard hulla of his wife from
a distance of 50-60 steps and rushed towards the place
of occurrence and saw that Birendra Yadav, Ayodhya
Yadav and Nepuri Devi were assaulting to his wife.
Ayodhya Yadav gave tangi blow, Birendra Yadav
assaulted by lathi and Nepuri Devi assaulted by stone.
Due to sustaining injuries his wife died. He has also
stated that the accused persons were calling her Daain.
He has proved his signature as Ext-2 on his Fardbeyan.
Although, he has stated that the accused persons were
assaulting to his wife, but the manner of assault and
presence of other witnesses has not been stated by him.
His attention has also been drawn towards the
statement before police, wherein also he has not stated
about the specific role of any of the accused persons
rather stated that they were seen fleeing from the place
of occurrence.
P.W.5 Charitra Yadav is 65 years old and according to
his evidence he heard hulla of Kamla devi, her husband
and Rajendra Yadav rushed towards the place of
occurrence and he could not run due to his oldness.
Page | 9
2025:JHHC:28187-DB
Hence, he was far behind them. Therafter, Chaturi
Yadav and Rajendra Yadav disclosed that Kamla Devi
has been assaulted by Birendra Yadav, Ayodhya Yadav
and Nepuri Devi. This witness has not stated the above
story as testified before Court at the time of recording
his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.
P.W.6 Dr. Braj Kishore Mundari has conducted
autopsy on the dead body of deceased on 09.10.2001
about 03.30 PM and found following injuries:-
(i) Lacerated injury over the chin 11/2" x ½ x bone deep
with fracture of mandible.
(ii) Laceration on margin of the lower lip ½" x 1/4" x
muscle deep.
(iii) Lacerated wound on right side of the face below the
eye 1/2" x1/4" x muscle deep.
(iv) Lacerated injury on frontenale 1.1/4"x 1" x bone
deep.
(v) Bruise on the right side of the face 3.1/2" x 2.1/2".
(vi) Sharp injury on right side of the frontal part of the
head and such as by tangi farsa or like transverse in
direction 3.1/2" x 1" x bone deep.
(vii) Bruise on posterior part of right elbow 1/4" x 1/4".
(viii) Bruise on top of the left shoulder 1" x 1".
Out of eight injuries except injury no.6, all injury
were caused by hard blunt substance like lathi, stones
Page | 10
2025:JHHC:28187-DB
or the like.
On dissection:-
Fracture of right parietal bone membrane of brain
congested and lacerated, trachea, larynx congested, both
lungs pale, heart chambers all empty and incisor teeth
of both jaw found fractured. The stomach was found
empty. Intestine contains gas, rectum empty, liver pale
spleen pale kidney also pale, urinary bladder empty,
uterus found small. The cause of death opined as "Death
occurred due to hemorrhagic shock due to above
injures.
Time since death is 08 to 18 hours. Above injuries
were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course. Injury
No. (VI) caused by sharp cutting weapon Post-mortem
report is marked as exhbit-3.
P.W.8 S.I. Upendra Kumar Singh got information about
the occurrence through rumor that on 09.10.2001 at
about 09:15 AM, a lady has been killed in village
Bhojpur. After making station diary entry, he proceeded
along with other police personnels to verify the matter
and reached at village Nimiya Dhoda, where he saw the
dead body of Kamla Devi, who has sustained fresh
injuries caused by sharp weapon on forehead.
This witness recorded Fardbeyan of husband of the
deceased namely Chaturi Yadav, he has clearly stated
Page | 11
2025:JHHC:28187-DB
that they have seen the accused persons fleeing with the
tangi and nothing else. He prepared inquest report of the
deceased in presence of witnesses which is marked as
exhibit 4 and sent the dead body of the deceased for
post-mortem. After receiving post-mortem report,
recording the statement of other witnesses finding
sufficient evidence submitted charge-sheet against the
accused persons.
His attention has been drawn towards the statement
of the witnesses Rajendra Prasad (P.W.1) who has stated
nothing about the specific overt act of any accused
persons in his statement recorded under Section 161 of
the Cr.P.C. In his cross examination the investigating
officer has stated, the extract of which is as under:-
"राजे साद (P.W.1) ने मेरे सामने नह कहा था क सुरज
िनकल रहा था। यह नह कहा था क मवेशी लेकर नीिमयां ढोड़ा जा रहे
थे वतः "वह थान नीिमया ढोडा ही है।" यह नह बोला था क वहां पर
पहले से अयो या यादव, बीरे यादव और नेपुरी देवी बैठे थे। यह भी
नह बोला था क उधर से कमला आ रही थी तो अयो या टांगी और
बीरे लाठी िलए ए थे, नेपुरी खाली हाथ थी। ऐसा भी बयान नह
दया ह क कमला आ रही थी तो तीन उठकर मारने दौड़े। यह भी नह
कहा क अयो या टांगी से माथा पर मारा। यह भी नह बोला क बीरे
लाठी से मारा। यह भी नह कहा क नेपुरी ने प थर से मुंह पर मारा। यह
भी नह कहा क ह ला पर चतुरी एवं च रतर आए। यह भी नह कहा
Page | 12
2025:JHHC:28187-DB
क जब हमालेग घटनाथल पर आए तो वे लोग मार रहे थ यह भी नह
कहा था क तुमलोग आओगे तो तुमलोग को भी मार देगे। यह भी नह
कहा था क कमला मर गई तो वे लोग भाग गए।
चतुरी (P.W.4) फद यान म या पुनः बयान म नह बोला क
हम गाय खोलकर नीिमयां दोहर जा रहे थे। हम पचास साठ डेग दौड़े यह
बयान नह दया था । यह भी नह कहा था क कमला बोली " आई हो
माई।" यह भी नह कहा था क पचास डेग थे तो दोड़े। यह भी नह कहा
था क वह देखा क अयो या बीरे और नेपुरी घेरकर मेरी प ी को मार
रहे थे यह भी नह कहा है क अयो या टांगी से मारा। यह भी नह कहा
क बीरे लाठी से मारा। यह भी नह कहा है क नेपुरी प थर से मारी।
चतुरी ऐसा नह कहा था क कब तक घेरकर रखोगे सांझ िबहान म मडर
कर देगे। चतुरी बोला था क उसक प ी खु क रासता से आई।
च रतर (P.W.5) नह कहा था क चतुरी के प ी का आवाज
सुना। यह नह कहा था क चतुरी और राजे र दौड़े तो हम पीछे से
दौड़े। यह नह कहा था क हम बुढ़ापा के वजह से कु छ पीछे हो गए। यह
नह कहा था क राजे और चतुरी खड़े हो गए। यह भी नह कहा है क
हम खड़ा होने का वजह पुछे तो वे बोले क हमारे प रवार को अयो या,
बीरे दर और अयो या क प ी को मार रहे थे यह भी नह कहा था क
हमभी मरदाना है चलो। यह भी नह कहा था क हम गए तो चतुरी को
बेहोश देख।
हमको कसी गवाह ने नह कहा क उसने कमला को मारते देखा।
जहां पर चतुरी सोता था वहां से घटना थल करीब 400-500 गज क दूरी
पर ह। घटना थल बेलवा डामर गांव नह ह।"
Page | 13
2025:JHHC:28187-DB
11. It is utter surprising that during course of trial, the
informant Chaturi Yadav (P.W.4) has also stated that he
had seen the accused persons assaulting his wife,
witness Charitra Yadav has also stated that he heard
hulla of the wife of the Chaturi Yadav and rushed
towards the place of occurrence.
12. One court witness namely Ram Dhyan Pal has proved
the formal F.I.R.
13. On the other hand no oral as well as documentary
evidence has been adduced by the defence. The case of
the defence is false implication merely on the basis of
suspicion.
14. From the aforesaid discussion of testimony of the
prosecution witnesses, it appears that none of the
witnesses are eye-witnesses of occurrence. The story
about actual participation of the appellants in the
alleged crime, appears to be material improvement. The
single circumstance as alleged is that appellants
Ayodhya Yadav with Tangi, Birendra Yadav with Lathi
and Nepuri Devi were seen fleeing just after the
occurrence. The motive behind the occurrence attributed
against the appellants is that they were suspecting the
deceased to be Daain and indulging in Daain Practices
due to which wife of Ayodhya Yadav was ailing. No other
connecting evidence has been collected during
Page | 14
2025:JHHC:28187-DB
investigation like any weapon of offence, blood stained
arms or stone from the place of occurrence. It is a case
of murder which is severely punishable and the
minimum sentence is life imprisonment, therefore, it
requires evidence of high degree. No conviction can be
based only on the basis of suspicion. In the instant case,
the suspicion raised by the informant at the time of
lodging the F.I.R. never culminated into any legal proof.
The evidence of witnesses also suffers from
exaggerations, material improvements and discrepancies
in material particulars. Admittedly, during the course of
investigation as well as at the time of instituting the
F.I.R., no specific role or participation or manner of
assault to the deceased at the hands of appellants has
been asserted, but such improvements are appearing in
the evidence before the court for the first time from the
mouth of witnesses who are close relatives of the
informant.
15. The overall spectrum of the incident as focused by the
witnesses does not inspire our confidence about their
truthfulness. We are of the concrete view that the
learned trial court has relied the examination-in-chief of
the witnesses without analyzing and appreciating the
materials elicited in their cross-examination and also the
contradictions got explained through the mouth of
Page | 15
2025:JHHC:28187-DB
Investigating Officer. As such, arrived at wrong
conclusion. Therefore, we are constrained to hold that
learned trial court has committed serious error of law in
not appreciating the testimony of witnesses in proper
manner and undue weightage has been given to the
exaggerated testimony. There is no iota of evidence to
prove the culpability of the appellants in the alleged
offence of murder. Accordingly, we set aside the
judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants
for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. passed by
Sessions Judge, Garhwa in S.T. Case No.1110 of 2001
and this appeal is allowed.
16. Appellants are on bail, hence, they are discharged from
the liability of bail bond and sureties are also
discharged.
17. I.A. if any stands disposed of.
18. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court records
be send back to the court concerned for information and
needful.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi
Date:15 /09/2025
Amar/- N.A.F.R.
Page | 16
