Jharkhand High Court
Ram Lal Dehri vs The State Of Jharkhand on 26 September, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30363-DB )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.342 of 2019
------
[Against the judgment of conviction dated 11.07.2018 and order of
sentence dated 12.07.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-II, Dumka in S.T. Case No.173 of 2012 arising out of Gopikandar
P.S. Case No.31 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. No.1450 of 2011]
------
Ram Lal Dehri, son of Late Lachhu Dehri, aged about 62 years,
resident of village-Dundwa Bandh Tolal, P.S. & P.O.-Gopikandar,
District-Dumka .... .... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
------
For the Appellant : Mrs. Ragini Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. S.K. Srivastava, A.P.P.
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGEMENT
------
CAV On 22/09/2025 Pronounce On 26 / 09/2025
Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. We have already heard the arguments of Mrs. Ragini Kumari,
learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.K. Srivastava,
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The instant criminal appeal is preferred by above named sole
appellant for setting aside the judgment of conviction dated
11.07.2018 and order of sentence dated 12.07.2018 passed by
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30363-DB )
the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dumka in S.T. Case
No.173 of 2012 arising out of Gopikandar P.S. Case No.31 of
2011, corresponding to G.R. No.1450 of 2011, whereby and
whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offences
under sections 302 and 307 of Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for life along with fine of Rs.10,000/-
(Ten Thousand) for the offence under section 302 of IPC and
R.I. for 7 years along with fine of Rs.1,000/-(One thousand) for
the offence under section 307 of Indian Penal Code with
default stipulation. Both the sentences are directed to run
concurrently. Other co-accused persons, namely, Kollen Dehri,
Budhini Maharani and Samanti Maharani have been extended
benefit of doubt and acquitted from the charges under sections
302/34 and 307/34 of IPC.
Factual Matrix:-
3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on
14.11.2011 at about 10:00 pm, the accused person, Ram Lal
Dehri (appellant) along with Kollen Dehri, Budhani Maharani
and Samanti Maharani arrived at the house of the informant,
Sundarmuni Maharani. It is alleged that Ram Lal
Dehri(appellant) told the informant's husband that your wife
is searching another husband, which was protested by
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30363-DB )
Surendra Dehri(since deceased) and there was exchange of hot
words between both the parties. Meanwhile, Ram Lal Dehri
gave lathi blow on the head of the informant's husband
causing injury on left side of the head with intention to kill
him. Due to sustaining head injuries, the informant's husband
fell down and died on spot. It is further alleged that the
informant rushed to rescue her husband, she was also
assaulted by Ram Lal Dehri on her head with intention to kill
her. She has also sustained fracture injury on head. The
informant raised alarm "bachao-bachao" then her daughter
Nilmuni Kumari (P.W.1) rushed and has seen the occurrence.
It is further alleged that after hearing the screams of the
informant, several villagers assembled at the place of
occurrence, then the accused persons fled away.
4. On the basis of above information, FIR was registered for the
offences under sections 302, 323, 307/34 of Indian Penal Code.
After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was
submitted for the offences under sections 302, 323, 307, 109,
120-B/34 of Indian Penal Code. After taking cognizance, the
case was committed to the court of Sessions and S.T. No.173 of
2012 was registered. The appellant has denied the charges
leveled against him and claimed to be tried. After conclusion
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30363-DB )
of the trial, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence
of the appellant was passed, which has been assailed in this
appeal.
5. In course of trial, altogether 9 witnesses have been examined
by the prosecution namely:-
P.W.1-Nilmuni Kumar(Daughter of the informant and
deceased)
P.W.2-Dukhi Maharani
P.W.3-Nimita Kumari
P.W.4-Rubin Kisku
P.W.5-Yogesh Kisku @ Yogendra
P.W.6-Harendra Dehir
P.W.7-Dr. Nishit Kumar Jha
P.W.8-Sundarmuni Maharani(informant)
P.W.9-Baiju Baraik(Investigating Officer)
6. Apart from oral testimony of witnesses, following
documentary evidence has been adduced:-
EXt.1-Memo of arrest of Budhni Devi
Ext.1/1-Memo of arrest of Samanti Maharani
Ext.2-Postmoretem report
Ext.3.-Signature of informant on fardbeyan
Ext.4-Fardbeyan
Ext.5.Inquest report
Ext.6.Requestioned for injury report
Ext.7-Injury report of Sundarmuni Maharani
Ext.8.Formal FIR
Ext.9-Sketch Map.
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30363-DB )
7. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been
adduced by the defence. The case of defence is denial from the
occurrence and false implication and plea of innocence.
8. Learned trial court after appreciating the evidence available on
record arrived at conclusion that the appellant, Ram Lal Dehri
has assaulted to the deceased with a thick lathi with an
intention to kill him as a result of which he sustained fracture
injury on head and died on spot. He has also attempted to kill
the wife of the deceased-cum-informant of this case and
accusations against other co-accused persons are general and
omnibus in nature. Accordingly, held the appellant guilty and
sentenced for the offences as stated above and other accused
persons were acquitted.
Submission on behalf of Appellant:-
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the eye-
witness of this case is only alleged to be P.W.1-Nilmuni
Kumari, who is the daughter of the deceased and the
informant-Sundarmuni Maharani (P.W.8) and other witnesses
of facts are hearsay witnesses. It is admitted fact that the
dispute arose between the parties in a sudden manner without
any premeditation and a single blow of lathi is alleged to be
given by the appellant to the deceased and his wife. The injury
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30363-DB )
sustained by the deceased although on vital part of the body
like head but the death was due to shock and hemorrhage due
to head injury. P.W.7-Dr. Nishit Kumar Jha, who has
conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, has
found a single injury i.e. abraded wound 3" x 2"x 1/4" on left
side of scalp. It is not opined that the said injury was sufficient
in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore, the
ingredients of murder as defined under section 300 of IPC is
not attracted in this case. Moreover, the case falls under
Exception 4 appended to section 300 of IPC. Therefore, it is a
case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, which has
happened at spur of moment without any premeditation or
taking any undue advantage of the situation.
10. It is further argued that even if, it may be assumed, for the
sake of argument that appellant has intentionally caused injury
on the vital part of the body to the deceased resulting in his
death, the injury was not found sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death. Therefore, the injury intended
to be caused was likely to cause death. Accordingly, the
offence committed by the appellant falls under section 304 Part
1 of Indian Penal Code. The appellant is in custody for more
than 10 years and has been sufficiently punished for his guilt.
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30363-DB )
Therefore, this appeal is fit to be allowed with modification in
conviction and sentence passed against the appellant.
Submission on behalf of the State:-
11. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the
contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and submitted
that it is technical error in the post-mortem report that the
doctor has not mentioned that injury sustained by the
deceased was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause
death but there was multiple fracture and brain hemorrhage.
The appellant not only assaulted to the deceased but also
similar blow was given on the head of the informant. Hence,
conviction and sentence of the appellant is absolutely justified
under law for the offence of murder. There is no legal
substance in the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant
and no merits in this appeal, which is fit to be dismissed.
Analysis, Reasons and Decision:-
12. We have gone through the record of the case along with
impugned judgment and order in the light of contentions
raised on behalf both side.
13. It appears that in order to substantiate the charges leveled
against the appellant, altogether 9 witnesses were examined by
the prosecution.
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30363-DB )
P.W.1-Nilmuni Kumari is the daughter of the
informant. According to her evidence, the accused Ram Lal
Dehri was labeling imputation of chastity against her mother
that she is in search of another husband, which was protested
by her father then all the four accused persons surrounded her
father and gave lathi blow on his head due to which, he fell
down and died on spot. She raised alarm then other villagers
assembled. She has further deposed that her mother came to
rescue her father then she was also assaulted by lathi on her
head.
In her cross-examination, she specifically admits that at
the time of occurrence, she was inside the house and her father
was outside and she was seeing the occurrence from the house.
P.W.8-Sundarmuni Maharani is the informant.
According to her evidence, at the time of occurrence, it was
8:00 pm, and she was inside the house. Her husband was in the
street where Budhni Maharani, Ramlal Dehri, Samanti and
Kollen Dehri killed her husband. She went to rescue her
husband, then, accused persons also assaulted on her head by
iron rod. She has proved her signature on fardbeyan.
In her cross-examination, she categorically admits that
none of the villagers have seen the occurrence of assault given
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30363-DB )
to her husband by the accused persons. She also reiterates that
all four accused persons assaulted to her husband in the street
near her house. She also reiterates that all four accused persons
have assaulted to her and caused head injury to her.
P.W.2-Dukhi Maharani came out from the house after
hearing hulla and saw that Surendra Dehri lying on road in
injured condition sustaining injuries on his head and he died
on the spot. She has also stated that both parties were under
inimical terms and there was previous dispute between them.
Admittedly, this witness is not an eye-witness of the
occurrence.
P.W.3, Nimita Kumari went to the place of occurrence
in the next day of morning and saw the dead body of the
deceased, as such declared hostile by the prosecution.
P.W.4, Rubin Kisku is a resident at a distance of one
kilometer from the place of occurrence. He came to know from
Sundarmuni Maharani (informant) about the occurrence, who
went to his house and informed. He has made telephonic call
at police station at about 2:00 am but no response was received
but the police arrived in the next day morning. Therefore, this
witness is also not eye-witness of the occurrence.
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30363-DB )
P.W.5-Yogesh Kisku @ Yogendra has stated that on
the date of occurrence in the night, the informant came to his
house and told that her husband has been assaulted. He went
to place of occurrence and saw Surendra Dehri was lying dead.
Thereafter, the police came and sent the dead body of the
deceased to Sadar Hospital, Dumka for post-mortem.
P.W.6-Harendra Dehri is elder brother of the deceased.
He was also present at his house and he came to know about
the occurrence from Gram-Pradhan. His house is situated
about a distance of one kilometer from the place of occurrence.
P.W.7-Dr. Nishit Kumar Jha has conducted autopsy
on the dead body of the deceased, Surendra Dehri and found
following injuries:-
External Injuries:-
Rigor mortis present in all four limbs, eyes were
closed, mouth was closed, blood drizzling left nostril. An
abraded wound having dimension 3" x 2" x ¼" was found on
left side of scalp.
Dissection:-
Bone under the over line tissue also fractures i.e.
frontal bone at left frontoparietal suture. Further dissection of
meninges shows inside the brain hemorrhage were present.
Opinion:-
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30363-DB )
The death caused due to brain hemorrhage after head
injury as a result of hard and blunt object.
Time lapse since death less than 24 hours.
This witness has proved his signature on the post-
mortem report, which is marked as Ext.2.
P.W.9-S.I. Baiju Baraik is the Investigating Officer of
this case. According to his evidence, on 15.11.2011 at about 5:30
am, he received telephonic information that in village-
Dundhawa, some incident of assault has taken place due to
which one person has died. He made S.D. Entry No.217 dated
15.11.2011 and informed the superior police officer, then along
with other police personnel went to the place of occurrence
and reached there at about 6:30 am, where he recorded the
fardbeyan (Ext.4) of the informant, Sundarmuni Maharani and
prepared the inquest report (Ext.5) of the deceased, Surendra
Dehri in presence of witnesses. He has also prepared the
chalan of dead body of the deceased and sent for postmortem
and the informant, Sundarmuni Maharani was sent to Primary
Health Centre, Gopikandar for treatment of her injury. The
requisition slip for injury report is Ext.6 and the injury report
mentioned on the backside of the requisition of injured,
Sundarmuni Maharani is marked as Ext.7. He has proved the
Formal FIR as Ext.8. He has also visited the place of occurrence
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30363-DB )
and inspected in presence of informant and recorded the
statement of other villagers and also prepared sketch map
(Ext.9) of the place of occurrence. He found sufficient evidence
against all four accused persons and submitted charge-sheet
against them for the offences under sections 302, 323, 307, 109,
120B/34 of IPC.
In his cross-examination, he admits that he has not
seized bloodstained clothes of the deceased. He has also not
collected bloodstained soil from the place of occurrence. He
has denied the suggestion of defence that his investigation is
defective and without sufficient evidence, he has submitted
charge-sheet against the accused persons.
14. Aforesaid evidence of ocular witnesses clearly goes to show
that only P.W.1 and P.W.8 are alleged to be eye-witnesses of
the occurrence. It is also admitted that the incident took place
in a sudden scuffle between the parties. There was a single
blow caused by lathi to the deceased and the informant. The
post-mortem report of the deceased also shows a single injury
caused on the head to deceased resulting in his death due to
shock and hemorrhage. It is also obvious that there was no
repetition of blow by the appellant, which indicates that there
was no intention of the appellant to commit murder of the
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30363-DB )
deceased. The injury report of the informant, Sundarmuni
Maharani shows that she has sustained one lacerated wound
2"x 4"x Muscle Deep on forehead, which is opined to be
simple in nature caused by hard blunt object. The above injury
also falls under section 323 of IPC in absence of required
intention and knowledge to constitute the offence under
section 307 of IPC.
15. We have considered the overall aspect of the case, genesis and
manner of occurrence as well as force used for causing injury
to the deceased through a single lathi blow and arrive at
conclusion that the injuries were not opined to be sufficient to
cause death in ordinary course of nature and it was not
intended to cause death rather at the time of inflicting the
injuries, the appellant was having knowledge that inflicting
such injuries is likely to cause death. Therefore, the offence
committed by the appellant falls under section 304 part (ii) of
the IPC. It further transpires that the appellant has already
undergone more than 10 years of imprisonment during
pendency of trial and this appeal. Therefore, it appears that
appellant has been sufficiently punished for his guilt.
16. In view of the above discussion and reasons, conviction and
sentence of the appellant for the offence under section 302 of
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30363-DB )
IPC is, hereby, set aside and the same is altered/modified for
the offence under section 304 Part (ii) of IPC instead of life
imprisonment as awarded by the learned trial court, the
appellant is sentenced to imprisonment already undergone by
him.
17. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits with
modification of conviction and sentence of appellant to the
extent modified above.
18. The appellant is in custody, hence, he is directed to be released
forthwith, if not, required in any other case.
19. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly.
20. Let the copy of this order along with record of trial court be
sent back to concerned trial court for information and needful.
21. The operating portion of the order be immediately
communicated to the concerned trial court for facilitating the
release of the appellant from custody.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi
Date: 26/09/2025
Pappu/- N.A.F.R.
