[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Kedar Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 March, 2026
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
2026:JHHC:8296-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 787 of 2003
[Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.05.2003 &
28.05.2003, respectively passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, XIII,
Dhanbad in S.T. No.575 of 1995]
--------
1. Kedar Ram
2. Hridya Ram
3. Bijay Ram
All sons of Late Bihari Ram, residents of Sabar, P.O.-Sabar, P.S.-
Karamchat, District-Kaimur, Bhabhua, (Bihar)
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-----
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
--------
For the Appellants : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P.
--------
JUDGEMENT
C.A.V. on 12.01.2026 Pronounced on 24/03/2026
Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J:
1. The instant criminal appeal is preferred by the above-named appellants for
setting aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
27.05.2003 & 28.05.2003, respectively, passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge-XIII, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No. 575 of 1995, whereby and
whereunder the appellants have been held guilty and convicted for the offence
under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life.
2. It is here pertinent to mention that one co-convict Kishun Ram (main assailant)
had preferred Cr. A. (DB) No. 774 of 2003 and due to death of the said
appellant, his appeal has been abated.
2026:JHHC:8296-DB
Factual Matrix:-
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 27.05.1995 at about 08:00
P.M., some scuffle took place between the appellants and one Ramayan Ram.
It is alleged that accused Kishun Ram was holding Sabbal (iron rod) and other
accused persons were armed with lathi, all the accused persons assaulted to
deceased Ramayan Ram. It is further alleged that Sabbal blow inflicted on the
head of the deceased was responsible for his death. It is also alleged that the
informant Rama Kant Ram brought his injured brother to Central Hospital,
Jagjivan Nagar, Dhanbad for treatment but he could not be saved and died on
31.05.1995. The fardbeyan of the informant was recorded at Central Hospital,
Dhanbad. Accordingly, the F.I.R. was registered for the offence under Section
302/34 of the I.P.C.
4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the
appellants for the aforesaid offence. The case was committed to the Court of
Sessions where S.T. No. 575 of 1995 was registered.
5. The accused persons denied from the charges and pleaded their innocence and
false implication. Accordingly, the trial proceeded.
6. In the course of trial, altogether 8 witnesses were examined by prosecution to
substantiate the charges levelled against the accused persons. However, no oral
or documentary evidence was adduced by defence.
7. The learned Trial Court, after evaluating the evidence available on record, oral
as well as documentary, adduced by the prosecution, recorded the finding
about guilt of the appellants and sentenced to them for the offence under
Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. as stated above, which has been
assailed in this appeal.
2026:JHHC:8296-DB
Submissions on behalf of appellants:-
8. Learned counsel for the appellants challenging the impugned judgment and
order of conviction and sentence has pointed out the following main grounds:-
(i) Admittedly, the death blow by Sabbal is attributed only against Kishun
Ram, no specific overt act has been attributed against these appellants. The
cause of death of the deceased has also been opined to be head injury caused
by hard and blunt substance like Sabbal. Other injuries on the body of the
deceased are either abrasions or bruises of small measurement. Therefore, even
if it may be assumed that the appellants were also present with lathi and
assaulted the deceased, it cannot be inferred from the nature of injuries alleged
to be caused by them, that they were also intending to cause death of the
deceased and acted in furtherance of common intention to kill the deceased.
(ii) There is crucial difference between "common intention" and "similar
intention".
(iii) It is specific case of the prosecution that all the accused persons
surrounded the deceased and there was some scuffle but no lathi blow by the
present appellants was given to the deceased. In the meantime, Kishun Ram
went inside of his house and came again with a Sabbal and assaulted on head
of the deceased. Therefore, it was the premeditated act only on the part of
Kishun Ram and the other accused persons cannot be saddled with liability
attracting the provision of Section 34 of the I.P.C., inasmuch as there was no
common intention of the present appellants along with
co-convict Kishun Ram to cause death of the deceased. Therefore, the
appellants may be held guilty for their individual act in assaulting the deceased
by lathi and resultant injuries caused to the deceased which are simply bruise
and abrasions.
2026:JHHC:8296-DB
(iv) There are material contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of
alleged eye-witnesses, namely P.W.-2-Rama Kant Ram (informant-cum-
brother of the deceased) and P.W.-3-Bindhyachali Devi. Other witnesses are
either hearsay witnesses or have been turned hostile. P.W.-3 has claimed to be
sole eye-witness of the occurrence and denied the presence of even informant
(P.W.-2) at the relevant time of occurrence. She has attributed no role to the
present appellants except against the Kishun Ram who inflicted Sabbal blow
on head which was responsible for the death of the deceased.
9. In the premises of above points of argument, it is submitted that the presence
of appellants have been shown but no participation in the alleged crime has
been proved by any cogent evidence. Therefore, the conviction of the
appellants with the aid of Section 34 of the I.P.C. is absolutely unwarranted,
beyond the weight of evidence and based on conjectures and surmises which is
liable to be set aside and this appeal may be allowed.
Submissions on behalf of State:-
10. On the other hand, Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned A.P.P. has controverted
the aforesaid points of argument and submitted that the evidence of P.W.-1,
P.W.-2 & P.W.-3 categorically shows the genesis, manner and place of
occurrence and the actual role played by the appellants in assaulting the
deceased which ultimately resulted in his death.
The learned Trial Court has very wisely and aptly considered the overall
evidence available on record and arrived at right conclusion. The presence and
participation of all the accused persons have been proved beyond doubt.
Therefore, the conviction of appellants with the aid of Section 34 of the I.P.C.
is genuine and fit to be upheld and conferred. This appeal has no merits and fit
to be dismissed.
2026:JHHC:8296-DB
11. We have gone through the impugned judgment and order of conviction and
sentence of the appellants in the light of respective argument of the learned
counsel for the parties.
12. The only point for consideration in this appeal is that as to "whether the
conviction and sentence of appellants passed by learned Trial Court
suffers from any serious error of law calling for any interference by way
of this appeal?"
Analysis, discussions and reasons:-
13. Before imparting our verdict on the above point, we have to take brief resume
of oral testimony of witnesses examined in this case.
14. It appears that out of 8 witnesses examined by prosecution, P.W.-6-Nathuni
Harijan, P.W.-7-Rambali Pd. Gaud & P.W.-8-Gulab Harijan have been
declared hostile by the prosecution and expressed their no personal knowledge
about the occurrence.
P.W.-5-Nand Lal Paswan is a hearsay witness. According to him, after
happening of the incident, informant Rama Kant Ram came to his house and
told that his brother Ramayan Ram has been assaulted by accused persons
namely Kishun Ram, Hridya Ram, Kedar Ram and Bijay Ram. He went to the
place of occurrence and saw the injured Ramayan Ram was lying on a cot
under pool of blood. He went to manage an ambulance, send the injured to
Central Hospital, Dhanbad and after 2-3 days he came to know about the death
of the deceased.
P.W.-1-Dr. Shailendra Kumar has conducted autopsy on the dead body of
deceased.
Investigating Officer of the case has not been examined in this case.
15. The case of prosecution rests upon the testimony of P.W.-2, P.W.-3 &
P.W.-4.
2026:JHHC:8296-DB
P.W.-2- Rama Kant Ram is the informant, has deposed that on
27.05.1995 at about 08:00 P.M. his brother Ramayan Ram was assaulted by
Kedar Ram, Kishun Ram, Hridya Ram & Bijay Ram. It is further alleged that
Kishun Ram gave a Sabbal blow and other accused persons assaulted by lathi.
He has further deposed that at the relevant time of occurrence he had gone
to walk near station along with Hridya Ram (appellant) and returned to his
home at about 08:00 P.M., then his brother Ramayan Ram told this witness
"You used to walk with enemy and go away". In the meantime, Kishun Ram
arrived and caught hold of Ramayan Ram by neck meanwhile, other accused
persons also came with lathi then Kishun released the neck of Ramayan Ram
and went to his house and brought a Sabbal and gave a Sabbal blow on head
and due to above assault his brother fell down and became unconscious.
Meanwhile, his sister-in-law Bindhyachali Devi (P.W.-3) also arrived at the
place of occurrence. The matter was also communicated to Village Mukhiya,
Nand Lal Paswan. Thereafter, an ambulance was managed and they brought
the injured to Central Hospital, Jagjivan Nagar, Dhanbad, where is brother
died during course of treatment. He has proved his signature on fardbeyan
recorded by police at the hospital.
P.W.3- Bindhyachali Devi is the wife of deceased. According to her
evidence, on the date of occurrence at about 08:00 P.M., her husband Ramayan
Ram was sitting in front of the house. Meanwhile, her brother-in-law Rama
Kant Ram (informant) came along with accused Hridya Ram then her husband
started scolding to Rama Kant Ram, saying that why you are walking with
enemy and go out of home. Upon this Kishun Ram arrived and caught hold of
her husband by neck and started abusing in filthy language and Hridya Ram,
Kedar Ram & Bijay Ram also approached holding lathi. She has further
deposed that Kishun Ram inflicted Sabbal blow to her husband on head and
2026:JHHC:8296-DB
thereafter, all the accused persons fled away. Her husband was admitted in
Central Hospital but within 2-3 days he died.
In her cross-examination she admits that accused Kishun Ram is her
maternal uncle who was also working in the same colliery at Bagdigi with her
husband. She also admits that the house of accused persons is also adjacent to
her house. She clearly admits that at the time of occurrence alarm was raised
and several villagers arrived. She also claims that the first blow was given
by Kishun Ram to her husband by Sabbal then her husband fell down. She
could not tell how many stick blow were given by other accused persons. She
also claims that at the time of occurrence only she along with her husband
were present in the house and none else family members were present.
P.W.-4-Rajendra Lohar has also claimed to be eye-witness and stated that
on 27.05.1995 at about 08:00 P.M., he returned from his duty and hearing
halla, he went towards the house of Ramayan Ram where occurrence of
assault was going on. He saw that Kishun Ram went to his house and came
with a rod and inflicted a blow on his head due to which Ramayan Ram fell
down and Hridya Ram, Kedar Ram & Bijay Ram also assaulted by lathi.
Thereafter, injured was brought to Central Hospital, Dhanbad and later on he
died.
In his cross-examination this witness admits that he works in Lodna
Colliery which is situated at a distance of one and half kilometre from Bagderi
Colliery. He attended his duty on 27.05.1995 at about 04:00 P.M. and has
to work till 12 hours in night but he left his work and returned to his
home without any information to his immediate Superior Officer/Mining
Sardar. He also admits that he has not taken leave on that day. He also admits
that Mining Sardar comes out after expiry of duty hours but on that day he did
not came out along with Mining Sardar after discharging his duties.
2026:JHHC:8296-DB
The evidence of this witness, in the light of above cross-examination,
spread serious doubt on his testimony regarding his presence at the place
of occurrence rather he also appears to be hearsay witness who came to
know about the incident, later on. The manner in which he has deposed that he
heard halla when incident of assault was still going on then how he can say
that in the meantime Kishun Ram went to his own house and brought a Sabbal
and gave a Sabbal blow. Although, other witnesses claimed that Sabbal blow
was given at first thereafter, other accused persons assaulted by lathi.
P.W.-1-Dr. Shailendra Kumar has conducted the autopsy on the dead
body of the deceased Ramayan Ram and found the following ante-mortem
injuries:-
1. Stitched wound 1/2" long with three stitched situated vertically in the
middle of forehead near hairline.
2. Abrasion 2" x 1/2" on the right side of front of chest.
3. Abrasion 1.1/2" x 1/2 in the middle of a bruise 7" x 4" on the outer
aspect of upper portion of right arm.
4. Bruise 1" x 1/4" on the inner side of upper portion of front of left arm.
5. Abrasion 1/4" x 1/4" over the upper portion of front of right leg.
6. Abrasion 2" x 1/2" on the lower portion of front of right leg.
7. Abrasion 1" x 1/2" in the middle of a bruise 3" x 2" on the front of
lower portion of left leg.
8. Abrasion 2.1/2" x 1/2" on the back of left side of chest.
9. Abrasion 2" x 1" over back of right leg just below popliteal fossa.
On dissection:-
Right collar bone was fractured, ribs were found fractured from no.2 to 6
on right side and from no.2 to 4 on left side. Chest cavity contained blood on
both sides. Extensive tears were found on both lungs. Left side of heart was
2026:JHHC:8296-DB
empty and the right side was full of blood. Liver was tear in right side
interiorly. Abdominal cavity contained blood. Stomach contained about 100
C.C. of partly digested rice. Bladder was empty. Other internal organs were
found pale. Ecchymosis was found under scalp in frontal and both parietal
region of head. Frontal bone was found fractured and the portion of frontal
bone 2" x 1" was found missing beneath the seat of injury no.1. a surgical
manvouring. Brain and meninges were found lacerated at the site. Subdural
haematoma was found differed all over the surface of the brain of both sides.
The cause of death has been opined to be aforementioned hard blunt
forceful injury on vital organs like brain, lungs and liver. The post mortem
report is marked Exhibit-1.
In his cross-examination he admits that injury No.1 is on vital part of the
body which cannot be caused due to fall, the chest injury may be caused due to
fall.
16. We have given thoughtful consideration to the testimony of ocular witnesses.
It is quite obvious that, except P.W.-2-Rama Kant Ram and P.W.-3-
Bindhyachali Devi, there are no eyewitness to the occurrence. As per
testimony of P.W.-3-Bindhyachali Devi, at the time of occurrence, she along
with her husband, were alone in the house and her brother-in-law, Rama Kant
Ram (P.W.-2), came afterwards hearing halla. Just reverse to it, P.W.-2-Rama
Kant Ram states that he returned along with accused Hridya Ram from the
station side at about 08:00 P.M. then his brother Ramayan Ram scolded him,
saying that you are walking with enemy and directed to go out. So far manner
of occurrence is concerned, both P.W.-2 & P.W.-3 have consistently stated that
Kishun Ram went into his house and brought an iron rod and gave mighty
blow on the head of the deceased, due to which he fell down and became
unconscious. No specific role against rest accused persons, namely Hridya
2026:JHHC:8296-DB
Ram, Bijay Ram & Kedar Ram (present appellants) has been attributed by
these witnesses. It also transpires from the evidence of P.W.-2 & P.W.-3 that
prior to fatal assault given to the deceased by Kishun Ram, the present
appellants, namely Hridya Ram, Bijay Ram & Kedar Ram were present with
lathi but they did not assault the deceased. The post-mortem report (Exhibit-2)
of the deceased also clearly demonstrates that injury No.1, caused by Sabbal,
was on middle of forehead which resulted in fracture of portion of frontal
bone. There was hematoma over the surface of the brain of both sides which
resulted in death of the deceased. The rest of the injuries as observed in the
post-mortem report are simply abrasions and bruise which may be caused due
to fall.
17. The present appellants have been held guilty with the aid of Section 34 of the
I.P.C. which laid down the principle of joint liability of all the accused
persons, who act in concerted manner in furtherance of their common intention
to commit a criminal act.
In the instant case, only passive role has been attributed against the present
appellants in the sense that they were found standing with lathi. No specific
overt act has been attributed against them by the ocular witnesses rather P.W.-
2 & P.W.-3 simply state that Kedar Ram, Hridya Ram & Bijay Ram assaulted
by lathi to the deceased when he fell down after receiving the iron rod injury
which does not inspire confidence.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, if the present appellants have
intended to cause death of the deceased, they might have given blow by their
respective lathi to the deceased and without providing any opportunity to
Kishun Ram to bring a Sabbal from inside his home and then to assault first.
18. In view of above discussion and reasons, we are of the firm view that the
learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the testimony of main ocular
2026:JHHC:8296-DB
witnesses, P.W.-2 & P.W.-3, in right perspective as regards manner of
occurrence and the role played by the present appellants. We further find that
the allegation against the appellants for assaulting the deceased by lathi
indiscriminately does not find corroboration from post-mortem report of the
deceased, where rest of the injuries are found to be bruise and abrasions not
likely to be caused by lathi but rather as a result of falling down of the
deceased after receiving mighty blown on head. Therefore, the present
appellants deserve the benefit of reasonable doubt and deserve to be acquitted
from the charges levelled against them. Accordingly, impugned judgment and
order of conviction and sentence of the appellants passed by learned Trial
Court is hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted from the charges
levelled against them.
19. The appellants are on bail; they are also discharge from their respective
liabilities of bail bonds and sureties are also discharged.
20. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
21. Let a copy of this judgment along with the trial court record be sent back to the
concerned court for information and needful.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)
(PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.)
Jharkhand High Court
Dated 24/03/2026
Arpit/ N. A. F. R.
Uploaded on 25/03/2026
