[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Om Prakash Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 March, 2026
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
2026:JHHC:8295-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 79 of 2019
..........
Om Prakash Prasad, aged about 50 years, Son of Rameshwar Sahu, Resident of
Village-Upper Hatia, P.O. + P.S.-Jagarnathpur, Dist.-Ranchi (Jharkhand)
... ...Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ...Respondent
............
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
.............
For the Appellant : Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P.
..........
C.A.V. on 18.02.2026 Pronounced on 24/03/2026
JUDGEMENT
Per: Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J
We have heard Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant
and Learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The instant criminal appeal is preferred by above named sole appellant
challenging his conviction and sentence dated 20.05.2017 and 22.05.2017,
respectively, for the offence of murder of his own wife and brother-in-law
passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVIII, Ranchi, whereby and
whereunder, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation,
for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C.
Factual Matrix:-
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 17/18.07.2013, in the
night, informant namely Pankaj Kumar (P.W.-2) at about 12:30 am heard Halla
of his mother namely Sulochana Devi (P.W.-1) and rushed towards her room.
Meanwhile, he saw that own brother of the informant namely Om Prakash
Prasad (present appellant) having blood-stained hammer in his hand was
2026:JHHC:8295-DB
fleeing away from the room. The informant further saw that his sister-in-law
Aarti Devi (wife of the appellant) and Shanker Sao (brother-in-law of the
appellant) were lying under pool of blood sustaining severe injuries on head
and other part of the body. The informant along with other family members and
villagers brought the injured persons to R.I.M.S., Ranchi for treatment where
Aarti Devi was declared dead by the Doctor and her brother Shanker Saw also
died during course of treatment. It is alleged by the informant that there was
certain dispute and differences between the deceased (wife) and the appellant
(husband). Due to that reason, the appellant has committed murder of his wife
and wife's brother.
4. On the basis of above information, F.I.R. was registered for the offence
under Section 307/302 of the IPC.
5. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted
against the sole accused, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions,
where S.T. No. 127 of 2014 was registered. The accused faced trial and has
been held guilty and sentenced as stated above.
Submissions on behalf of appellant:-
6. Learned counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment has
submitted that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case only on the
basis of suspicion out of grudge and ill-will. It is further submitted that
altogether five witnesses were examined by the prosecution to substantiate the
charge of murder against the appellant. Out of them, P.W.-1, Sulochana Devi
happens to be mother of the appellant has categorically stated in her cross-
examination that she had not seen the accused while assaulting the deceased
persons. P.W.-2 Pankaj Kumar (informant), own brother of the appellant has
also stated that he saw the appellant was fleeing away with blood-stained
hammer in hand and has not seen the occurrence himself. P.W.-3 Rameshwar
Sahu is the father of the appellant who has categorically admitted in his cross-
2026:JHHC:8295-DB
examination that at the time of occurrence, the accused (appellant) was not of
sound mind, due to that reason, the occurrence took place. P.W.-4, Ramdhari
Singh is the Investigating Officer and not an eye witness of the occurrence.
Similarly, P.W.-5, Dr. Ajit Kumar Choudhary has conducted autopsy on the
dead body of the deceased persons who also admits that the age of the injured
is not ascertainable. It is further contended that there is no direct allegation
against the appellant that he has caused murder of the deceased persons. He
was also not apprehended by any of the villagers at the time of occurrence.
What type of inimical terms, the appellant had with his wife is also not proved?
The appellant has been convicted only on the basis that on the frightful night,
he was present with his wife, in the room and was seen fleeing away with a
hammer. The alleged seized hammer was also not sent to F.S.L. for chemical
examinations for ascertaining any presence of blood of the deceased persons,
therefore, it cannot be connected with injuries caused to deceased persons by
the said hammer.
The learned trial Court has committed serious error of law in
overlooking from consideration the aforesaid glaring aspects of the case and
arrived at wrong conclusion about guilt of the appellant, which is fit to be set
aside, allowing this appeal.
Submissions on behalf of State:-
7. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has controverted the aforesaid
contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and submitted that P.W.-1, P.W.-2
and P.W.-3 are none but parents and brother of the appellant who have
categorically stated that deceased was sleeping in the room with his husband
and brother-in-law. P.W.-1 has specifically stated that she heard noise and went
towards the room of her son (present appellant) and saw her daughter-in-law
along with her brother were lying in injured condition under pool of blood and
her son Om Prakash Prasad (appellant) was having a hammer which was blood-
2026:JHHC:8295-DB
stained fleeing away. The testimony of P.W.-1 is also corroborated from the
testimony of P.W.-2 who is the informant, own brother of the appellant. The
Post-Mortem Report of the deceased also proves the nature of injuries sustained
by the deceased persons caused by use of hammer. The wife of the appellant
Aarti Devi had sustained diffused contusion of right side of skull and right
temporal muscles. There was depressed fracture of 7cm x 4cm of tempro
parietal bones. Similarly another deceased Shiv Shanker Sahu has also
sustained injuries on head and diffused fracture and contusion were found on
right temporal region and frontal bones which were opined to be caused by
hard and blunt substance. There is no reason for mother, father and brother of
the appellant to give false evidence implicating in a case of murder. It is also
categorically proved that there was tense relationship between appellant and his
wife. The occurrence was also committed in the dead of night. The appellant
has brought nothing on record as to how and under what circumstances, his
wife died and received murderous assault, while she was in custody of the
accused. It is also not the case of defence that any other persons had entered in
the house of the appellant and caused murder of the deceased persons and fled
away. Therefore, the prosecution has proved its case, beyond all reasonable
doubt and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order
of conviction and sentence of the appellant calling for any interference, in this
appeal. This appeal has no merits and fits to be dismissed.
8. We have gone through the impugned judgment in the light of rival
contentions of the parties as projected by the respective counsels and also
perused the record.
9. The only point for consideration in this appeal is that as to whether the
impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant suffers from
any error of law, calling for any interference, in this appeal?
2026:JHHC:8295-DB
10. Before imparting our verdict on the above point, it is desirable to apprise
with the evidences adduced in this case.
11. It appears that altogether five witnesses were examined by the
prosecution in this case.
P.W.-1 Sulochana Devi is the mother of the appellant. She has stated that the
incident is of 17th July, 2013, at night and the incident took place in the old
house. I had gone to sleep. When I got up to go to the bathroom, I saw that
blood was coming out of daughter-in-law Aarti's mouth. When I went to the
other room, I saw that blood was coming out of her brother Shankar's mouth
also. There I saw Om Prakash, my elder son standing with a hammer in his
hand and Om Prakash started running away, so I woke up Pankaj and told him
to call Lokesh. Bhaiya has killed Bhabhi and her brother. Lokesh and his wife
came from the new house. People from the neighbourhood also gathered. Both
the deceased were breathing, so they were taken to the hospital. Aarti Died
immediately while her brother died in the Hospital during treatment. Then the
Police arrived and conducted the paperwork. She also admits that her elder son
Om Prakash murdered her wife and brother-in-law.
In her cross-examination, she has remained intact.
P.W.-2 Pankaj Kumar is the own brother of the appellant and informant in
this case who has deposed that on 17th July, 2013 at about 12 to 12:30 am, my
mother called out to me, crying and screaming. As soon as I left, my brother
ran out of the house with a hammer. There, I saw my sister-in-law and her
brother pooled in blood. I immediately called the people, my brother Lokesh
and my uncle's son. Everyone gathered. Then, I took them in injured condition
to the Hospital. Blood was coming out from their mouths, foreheads and ears.
Bhabhi died on the way to Hospital but her brother died in the Hospital during
the course of treatment. I informed the Police. The police took my statement at
home and at the police station also. I gave my statement at home. The police
2026:JHHC:8295-DB
recorded it. I singed it and my cousin Sanjay, whom I recognize, also signed it
which is marked as Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-1/1.
The accused himself murdered sister-in-law and her brother as he was
the one who had the hammer in his hand. The police seized the items in my
presence, prepared a seizure list, and obtained my signature as a witness
marked as Exhibit-2. The police also questioned at the hospital. He took my
signature as well as my brother Lokesh which I recognized and marked as
Exhibit 3 and 3/1.
In his cross-examination, he has also remained intact and denied the
suggestion of the prosecution.
P.W.-3 Rameshwar Sahu is the father of the accused who has deposed that the
incident occurred ten year ago. My son had a fight with his wife. It was
evening. People at home told me that his son and daughter-in-law had physical
fight with each other. I heard Om Prakash had hit his wife on the forehead with
a hammer. Om Prakash's wife died. I do not know her name. No one else was
assaulted except her.
In his cross-examination, he has stated that the son's mental condition
was not sound and later deteriorated. His mental condition was a factor that
contributed to this incident. He has further deposed that no one witnesses the
alleged murder committed by him. Based on the wound on his forehead, it is
assuming that he has killed them.
P.W.-4, S.I., Ramdhari Singh, who was entrusted with investigation of this
case by Mr. Anil Kumar, S.H.O., Jagarnathpur. On July 18,2013, He was
posted as S.I. at Jagarnathpur Police Station. After taking charge of the
investigation, he left for the place of occurrence and recorded restatement of
Pankaj Kumar and further recorded the statement of Sulochana Devi and
Mukesh Kumar and arrested Om Prakash Prasad at the place of occurrence.
2026:JHHC:8295-DB
He has further deposed that a blood-stained wooden cane, a hammer and
a blood-stained pillow cover were recovered. After preparing a seizure list, the
blood-stained hammer and pillow cover were seized. This seizure list is in my
handwriting and signature which is marked as Exhibit 2/1 and Exhibit 2/2. A
copy of the seizure list was given to the accused and his signature was also
taken.
The confession of the accused Om Prakash was recorded. He admitted
his guilt and voluntarily signed the confession. On the basis of the confessional
statement of the accused, a blood-stained hammer was seized from the bush.
He inspected the site of the incident. The site of this incident is the house
of the appellant in Uttar Hatia, located about 4 km south-east of the police
station, whose main door is towards the south. After entering inside, there is a
courtyard and a pucca room. After entering the room, there is a way to go to the
road through the lane from the back. There are three rooms next to the kitchen,
in the adjacent room of which the deceased Shanker was sleeping. His wife
Aarti Devi was sleeping in the adjacent room. Colony road is located to the
south of the incident site. The house of the appellant is on the north direction
followed by Upar Hatia Muhalla. In the west, there is a house of one of the
neighbourhood Manoj Sahu and in the east, there are well and cowshed. Next
to that, there is house of Krishna Prasad's House.
A map of the incident was prepared and seized items were exhibited and
the arrested accused was brought to the police station and forwarded to the
Court for judicial Custody.
He further deposed that on 19th July, 2013, he again visited the place of
occurrence and recorded the statement of Sulochana Devi. He also recorded
statement from Rameshwar Sahu and Suresh Prasad. A report was received
from the Station-in-Charge. An application was received from the deceased's
2026:JHHC:8295-DB
mother, Budul Devi. Despite being informed, Budul Devi did not appear for her
statement.
He further stated that on 18th July, 2013, the statement of informant
Pankaj Kumar was received and the inquest report of Aarti Devi and Shanker
Kumar were received. Pankaj Kumar's statement was taken again. On 5 th
August, 2013, Aarti Devi's post mortem report was received at the police
station which was handed over to me. On August 28, 2013, the post-mortem
report of Shiv Shanker was received from the Hospital. After the investigation
was completed, a charge sheet was filed against Om Prakash Prasad under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
He declined from being cross-examined in this case.
P.W.-5. Dr. Ajeet Kumar Choudhari. On 19.07.2013, he was posted as
Professor and Head in the Dept. of FMT, RIMS and Dr. Jyotina Kumari has
worked under him for three years and at present she is posted in the department
of Gyana as Jr. Resident.
He deposed that on 19.07.2013 at 14:45 hours, she conducted P.M.
examination under my supervision over the dead body of Sankar Kumar @
Shiv Shankar Sahu, S/o Ram Charan Sahu, R/o Vill. Nehalu, P.S. Bero, Dist.
Ranchi, male, aged 19 years, the body was brought and identified by Hawaldar
Devendra Choudhary from RIMS and found the following:-
Lacerated stitched wound:- (i) 5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep with 4 stitches
on right side of fore head (ii) 2cm x 2cm with stitch on right external auditory
meatus (iii) 2cm x 2cm with 2 stitches on front of right tragus. (iv) 3cm x 1cm
with 2 stitches above upper lip.
Lacerated wound no. (ii), (iii) & (iv) were self tissue deep. Lacerated
wound 1/2cm x 1/2cm x bone deep over right temporal region.
2026:JHHC:8295-DB
Internal:- (i) 3cm x 2cm x bone deep on right frontal bone. (ii) Moriaca
fracture of right temporo parietal region (iii) diffused contusion of right
temporo parietal and frontal bone and both temporaries muscles.
There was presence of sub dural blood and blood clots both sides of
brain.
Opinion:- (i) Above noted injuries were ante mortem and caused by hard
and blunt substance. (ii) death was due to above noted injuries. (iii) Time since
death was between 3 to 12 hours from the time of conduction of P.M.
examination.
3. This P.M. report is in hand writing and signature of Dr. Jhotina
Kumari and counter signed by me. Marked as Ext.-4.
4. He further deposed that on 18.07.2013, Dr. Kaushal Kishore was
posted as Junior Resident and I was HoD in the Dept. of FMT, RIMS. On that
day at 13:15 hours, Dr. Kaushal Kishore, under my supervision, conducted PM
examination over the dead body of Arti Devi, W/o Om Prakash, R/o Vill. Uper
Hatiya, P.S. Jagarnathpur, Dist. Ranchi, female aged about 27 years, body was
brought and identified by Hawaldar Devendra Choudhari and found the
following injuries:-
Lacerated wound (i) 4cm x 1cm x bone deep on right temporal region
soft tissue on right occipital region. (ii) 5cm x 2cm x bone deep on right
parietal region. (iii) 3cm x 1cm x soft tissue on right occipital region.
Internal-There was diffused contusion of right side of skull and right
temporalis muscles. There was depressed fracture of 6cm x 4 cm on right
temporal bone. Another depressed fracture of 7cm x 4 cm of tempro parietal
bones. There was contusion of brain and presence of sub dural blood and blood
clots on both sides of brain.
Opinion:- (i) above noted injuries were ante mortem in nature (ii)
Caused by hard and blunt substance (iii) Death was due to above head injury.
2026:JHHC:8295-DB
(iv) Time since death between 6 to 18 hours from the time of P.M.
examination.
5. This P.M. report was written by Dr. Kaushal Kishore, signed by
him and counter signed by me, marked as Exhibit -4/1.
12. Apart from the oral testimony of witnesses, following documentary
evidences were also adduced: -
i. Exhibit-1 Signature of P.W.-2 Pankaj Kumar over
fardveyan dated 18.07.2013.
ii. Exhibit-1/1 Sinature of Sanjay Kumar over fardveyan
dated 18.07.2013.
iii. Exhibit-2 Signature of P.W.-2 Pankaj Kumar over
seizure list dated 18.07.2013.
iv. Exhibit-2/1 Signature of Randhir Singh over seizure list
dated 18.07.2013.
v. Exhibit-2/2 Seizure list dated 18.07.2013 relating to
recovery of Hammer etc.
vi. Exhibit-3 Signature of Pankaj Kumar over fardveyan
recorded at RIMS
vii. Exhibit-3/1 Signature of Lokesh Kumar over fardbeyan
recorded at RIMS.
viii. Exhibit 4, 4/1 Post Mortem Report of Shanker Kumar and
Aarti Devi
13. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced
by the defence.
14. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has admitted
that on the date of occurrence, in the night, at the relevant time, he was in his
house along with his wife and brother-in-law. He has also admitted that he had
tense relationship with his wife. He has also answered the question that his
2026:JHHC:8295-DB
mother and brother had seen him with blood-stained hammer, just after the
occurrence and fleeing away from the place of occurrence, wherein also, he
admits that he gave a hammer blow, on the head of his wife due to which, she
died. He also admits that on the basis of confessional statement recorded by the
police, blood-stained hammer was recovered from the bush identified by him.
15. We have given anxious consideration to the overall aspects of the case
and the evidence available on record, it appears that prosecution has been able
to prove the tense relationship between the deceased (wife) and her husband
(present appellant). It is also proved that at the frightful night, present appellant
assaulted by hammer both to his wife and brother-in-law and immediately seen
by his mother (P.W.-1) and brother (P.W.-2). The villagers were also informed
and deceased were brought to Hospital for treatment but both died. The injury
sustained by the injured persons also appears to be caused by hammer. It is also
established by the prosecution that on the basis of confessional statement of
accused (appellant), blood-stained hammer was recovered from bush, on
identification by the present appellant, which was also seized and seizure list
was exhibited as Exhibit- 2/2 in the presence of witnesses.
16. Apart from clinching evidence of the prosecution, witnesses who are
none else but the mother, father and brother of the appellant himself against
whom nothing has been brought on record to indicate that they have falsely
implicated their own son escaping the real culprit. The appellant has also
admitted his guilt in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that also appears
to be true and voluntary, which does not amount the confession but simply
admission of the circumstances, under which, the murderous assault was given
to the deceased persons.
17. From discussion of oral as well as documentary evidence available on
record, we find that the prosecution has conclusively proved the guilt of the
appellant, for the offence of murder of his own wife and brother-in-law beyond
2026:JHHC:8295-DB
all reasonable doubt. The learned trial Court has very wisely and aptly
considered the overall aspects of the case and the evidence available on record
and arrived at right conclusion, while convicting the appellant for the offence
of murder. There appears no serious error of law in concluding about the guilt
of the appellant by the learned trial Court.
18. In view of the above discussions and reasons, we do not find any merits
in this appeal, which stands dismissed.
19. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly.
20. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the court concerned for
information and needful.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi
Date: 24/03/2026
Basant/-N.A.F.R.
Uploaded on 25/03/2026
