Jharkhand High Court
Chanda Kharia vs The State Of Bihar (Now Of Jharkhand) on 12 March, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2026:JHHC:6687-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.31 of 1998(R)
-----
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 15.01.1998 and order
of sentence dated 16.01.1998 passed by learned 1st Addl.
Sessions Judge, Gumla, in Sessions Trial No. 506 of 1987)
----
1.Chanda Kharia
2.Dukhan Kharia
Both sons of Late Amus Kharia, Resident of Village-Silam
Gaino Toli, P.S.-Raidih, District-Gumla ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar (now of Jharkhand)
...... Respondent
-----
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
------
For the Appellants : Mr. Rajarshi Sarkar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P.
.........
C.A.V. on 17/02/2026 Pronounced on 12/03/2026
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant appeal, has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment of conviction dated 15.01.1998 and order of sentence dated 16.01.1998 passed by learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Gumla, in Sessions Trial No. 506 of 1987 whereby and whereunder the present appellants had been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, as per the fardbeyan dated 20.01.1986, of the informant Khudi Singh (P.W.-1), recorded by 2026:JHHC:6687-DB the Officer-in-Charge, Raidih Police Station, is that land dispute was continuing between the informant and Amus Kharia (father of the appellants herein). Informant further stated that land dispute was pending in the Palkot Circle office and on 20.01.1986 at about 8 A.M., in the morning, informant along with his father Dilbodh Singh(deceased), aged about 65 years, were going to catch the bus, to attend the case at Palkot Circle office. As soon as they reached near Marda River, informant sat down to defecate and the informant's father marched ahead.
3. Informant further stated that after defecation, when he moved 100 yards ahead, on the way to Darka Patra forest, he saw accused/ appellants Chanda Kharia and Dukhan Kharia both sons of Amus Kharia, armed with khukhri and lathi respectively were assaulting his father Dilbodh Singh. On seeing this informant ran away towards his village raising halla and on the way he met Chandra Nath Singh (P.W.-3) and Duryodhan Singh (P.W.-2) and told them about the occurrence and then reached his house and informed to this brother Mohan Singh about the occurrence. Thereafter, they returned to the place of occurrence and saw his father was killed and from the place of occurrence, his body was dragged and thrown in a ditch, which is east to the way. There was mark of injury on head, neck, back and leg of his father.
4. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, FIR being Raidih P.S. Case No. 03/1986 dated 20.01.1986 was instituted for the 2 2026:JHHC:6687-DB offences under section 302/201 of the I.P.C against both the appellants. After completion of investigation of the said case, charge-sheet had been submitted and the cognizance of the offences were taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
5. The charge was framed against the appellants under 302/34 of IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. In course of trial, the prosecution had examined altogether 5 witnesses out of whom P.W.1-Khudi Singh is the informant of the case and the son of Dilbodh Singh(deceased); P.W.-2 Duryodhan Singh; P.W.-3 Chandra Nath Singh; P.W-4 Gulab Chandra Sahu and P.W.-5 Birnath Pandit.
7. The statement of the appellants was recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedural Code, in which they denied from the prosecution evidence and claimed himself to be innocent.
8. The trial Court, after recording the evidence of witnesses, examination-in-chief and cross-examination, found the charges levelled against the present appellants proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the appellants had been found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 34 of I.P.C and as such, convicted and sentenced vide impugned judgment of conviction dated 15.01.1998 and order of sentence dated 16.01.1998.
9. The aforesaid order of conviction and sentence is subject matter of the instant appeal.
3
2026:JHHC:6687-DB Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants:
10. The following grounds have been taken by the learned counsel for the appellants in assailing the impugned judgment of conviction: -
(i) The appellants have been falsely implicated in this case due to earlier dispute between the parties and there are no cogent materials against the appellants hence the impugned judgment needs to be interfered with.
(ii) The Learned Trial Court failed to consider the contradiction in the informant's statement given in his fardbeyan and in his testimony. Learned counsel submitted that as in fardbeyan informant stated that when he reached to river Marda he sat down to defecate and after defecation he again followed his father then he saw that the present appellants were assaulting his father but in the examination-in-chief he had stated that when he reached to river Marda he sat down to defecate and when he heard hulla being raised by his father, then he rushed towards the place wherefrom his father was raising hulla and saw that the appellants were assaulting his father, and referring the aforesaid fact it has been contended that there is vital contradiction in fardbeyan vis-vis examination-in-chief of the informant.
(iii) The Learned trial court has failed to appreciate that P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 are hearsay witnesses, but, the learned 4 2026:JHHC:6687-DB trial court has relied on the oral evidence of P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 as corroborative in nature.
(iv) The learned court has not taken into consideration that the investigating officer and doctor has not been examined hence in aforesaid circumstance, testimony of solitary eye witness i.e. the informant ought not be considered as positive.
11. The learned counsel for the appellants, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the trial court has not taken into consideration the aforesaid facts, as such, the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eyes of law and requires interference.
Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent State:
12. Per Contra, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has taken the following grounds in defending the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence:
i. Submission has been made that there is clinching evidence to show that appellants had assaulted the deceased with khukhri and lathi which is corroborated by the post-mortem report of the deceased.
ii. Further submission has been made that informant is sole eye witness of the occurrence who testimony is supported by the deposition of P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 and medical evidence. The witnesses were cross-examined but 5 2026:JHHC:6687-DB nothing contrary could be elicited from their mouth so as to disbelieve their version or the case of the prosecution.
iii. Further submission has been made that even if there are minor discrepancies in the testimonies of the witnesses that cannot wash away the case of the prosecution.
13. Learned A.P.P., based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the learned trial Court after taking into consideration the testimony of the prosecution witnesses more particularly the evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W-3 and medical evidence, has passed the impugned judgment of conviction, therefore, the same requires no interference. Analysis
14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record more particularly the testimony of the witnesses and the finding recorded by learned trial Court.
15. This Court, before going into the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, deems it fit and proper to refer the testimony of prosecution witnesses.
16. P.W-1 Khudi Singh is the informant of the case and son of Dilbodh Singh (deceased). P.W.-1 has stated in his examination-in-chief that on date of occurrence, he along with his father (deceased) had left home to board the vehicle for Palkot for attending the case at Palkot. On the way near Marda River, he sat down to defecate and his father moved forward and, in the 6 2026:JHHC:6687-DB meantime, he heard halla of his father from Durka Patra (name of forest) and he ran there. He saw accused Chanda Kharia and Dukhan Kharia armed with khukhri and lathi respectively, assaulting his father and seeing the occurrence he ran back and, on the way, he met Chandra Nath Singh (P.W.-3) and Duryodhan Singh (P.W.-2) and told them about the occurrence. Then, he reached his house and informed his brother Mohan Singh. Thereafter, they returned to the place of occurrence and saw his father was killed and his body was thrown in a ditch. There was mark of injury on his person.
17. In his cross-examination, informant stated that distance of Marda River to his house is about 200 yards. On hearing halla, he ran towards his father and there he saw both the accused persons/appellants were assaulting his father. He had seen the assault from a distance of 10-20 yards.
18. P.W.-2 Duryodhan Singh, has stated in his evidence that on the day of occurrence, he along with Chandra Nath Singh (P.W.-3), were going towards river to attend natures call. In the meantime, Khudi Singh was coming from river side raising halla that accused Dukhan Kharia and Chanda Kharia were assaulting his father and then they went towards the dead body, but, he did not see any accused persons there. The body of Dilbodh Singh was thrown in a ditch and there were mark of injuries on head and other parts of body. In his cross- 7
2026:JHHC:6687-DB examination P.W.-2 stated that the distance of Marda River from his house is half Mile.
19. P.W.-3 Chandra Nath Singh has stated in his examination-in-chief that on the date of occurrence it was 8-9 A.M., in the morning and he along with Duryodhan Singh (P.W.-
2) were going to attend the call of nature. In the meantime, Khudi (informant) was coming from the side of river and told them that accused Dukhan Kharia and Chanda Kharia were assaulting his father and then they went to the place of occurrence. There they did not see any accused persons, but, saw the body of Dilbodh Singh in a ditch.
20. P.W.-4 Gulab Chandra Sahu has stated in his evidence that on 20.01.1986, at 8.30 A.M., in the morning, he was at his house. He heard halla of Khudi Singh and came towards Marda River and saw dead body of Dilbodh Singh.
21. P.W.-5 is Birnath Pandit, who is the Officer-in-Charge. P.W.-5 has stated in his evidence that in January 1989, he was posted as Officer-in-Charge of Raidih Police Station and he had taken charge of this case on 03.04.1989 from Sub Inspector Ram Balak Tiwari. He had sent blood-soaked soil to the Chemical Laboratory and had submitted the charge- sheet of the case. P.W.-5 has proved the F.I.R, which was in the handwriting and signature of Sub Inspector Ram Balak Tiwari and the F.I.R was marked as Ext.-2. P.W.-5 further stated that investigation of the case was done by Sub Inspector Ram Balak Tiwari and the 8 2026:JHHC:6687-DB inquest report was written by him and bears his signature. Inquest report was marked as Ext.-3.
22. This Court, on the basis of the aforesaid factual aspect vis-a-vis argument advanced on behalf of parties, has to decide the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence particularly whether the informant P.W.-1 who is the sole eye witness of the case, is trustworthy and reliable, to convict the appellants under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC.
23. This court finds from the impugned judgment that learned trial court has convicted the appellants relying on the testimony of the informant P.W.-1 Khudi Singh, who is the sole eyewitness to the assault on Dilbodh Singh (deceased). Learned trial court had found that testimony of the informant was substantiated by P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 and further the testimony of sole eyewitness has also been corroborated by the Medical Evidence i.e.Post-Mortem Report.
24. Before we analyse and appreciate the circumstances that have weighed with the trial court, this court think it apposite to refer to certain authorities pertaining to evidentiary value of the sole eyewitness.
25. It is settled proposition of law that the judgment of conviction can be passed on the basis of the testimony of sole eyewitness but the testimony of said witness should be trustworthy and inspire confidence in the mind of the Court. 9
2026:JHHC:6687-DB
26. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony the courts will insist on corroboration. In fact, it is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time-honored principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, or otherwise.
27. The law is well settled that the judgment of conviction can be passed also on the basis of the testimony of sole witness but the testimony of said witness should be trustworthy as per the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of W.B., (2010) 12 SCC 91, paragraphs 30 to 34 of the said judgment are being referred hereunder as :-
"30. Shri Bagga has also submitted that there was sole testimony of Sujit Mondal, PW 1, and the rest i.e. depositions of PW 2 to PW 8, could be treated merely as hearsay. The same cannot be relied upon for conviction.
31. In Sunil Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) this Court repelled a similar submission observing that:
(SCC p. 371, para 9) "9. ... as a general rule the court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But, if there are doubts about the testimony the courts will insist on corroboration."10
2026:JHHC:6687-DB In fact, it is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, or otherwise.
32. In Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra this Court reiterated the similar view observing that it is the quality and not the quantity of evidence which is necessary for proving or disproving a fact. The legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is, therefore, open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction. Conversely, it may acquit the accused in spite of testimony of several witnesses if it is not satisfied about the quality of evidence.
33. In Kunju v. State of T.N., a similar view has been reiterated placing reliance on various earlier judgments of this Court including Jagdish Prasad v. State of M.P. and Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras.
34. Thus, in view of the above, the bald contention made by Shri Bagga that no conviction can be recorded in case of a solitary eyewitness has no force and is negatived accordingly."
28. Likewise, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kuriya and another vs. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 10 SCC 433 has held as under: -
" 33. ---The Court has stated the principle that, as a general rule, the Court can and may act on the testimony of a single eyewitness provided he is wholly reliable and base the conviction on the testimony of such sole eyewitness. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness."
29. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kalu @ Amit vs. State of Haryana, (2012) 8 SCC 34 held as under: 11
2026:JHHC:6687-DB "11. We find no infirmity in the judgment of the High Court which has rightly affirmed the trial court's view. It is true that the accused have managed to win over the complainant PW 4 Karambir Yadav, but the evidence of PW 5 Ram Chander Yadav bears out the prosecution case. It is well settled that conviction can be based on the evidence of a sole eyewitness if his evidence inspires confidence. This witness has meticulously narrated the incident and supported the prosecution case. We find him to be a reliable witness."
30. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sheelam Ramesh v. State of A.P., (1999) 8 SCC 369 in Para -18 held as follows:-
"18. According to learned counsel for the accused appellants, though PW 3 has deposed that 10-15 persons were in the vicinity at the time of occurrence, no independent witness was examined by the prosecution. There is nothing on evidence to show that there was any other eyewitness to the occurrence. Having examined all the eyewitnesses even if other persons present nearby were not examined, the evidence of the eyewitnesses cannot be discarded. Courts are concerned with quality and not with quantity of evidence and in a criminal trial, conviction can be based on the sole evidence of a witness if it inspires confidence."
31. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid discussion it is apparent that the conviction can be based on the evidence of a sole eyewitness if his evidence inspires confidence reason being that Courts are concerned with quality and not with quantity of evidence and in a criminal trial as per the statute there is no legal impediment on relying upon the testimony of sole eyewitness.
32. At this juncture, it would be pertinent to examine the testimony of the alleged sole eyewitness P.W.-1 Khudi Singh, who 12 2026:JHHC:6687-DB is the informant of the case, in the backdrop of aforesaid legal proposition.
33. Hence, this court is proceeding to examine the evidence of the informant P.W.-1 Khudi Singh vis-à-vis P.W.-2 and P.W.3, and the post-mortem report in order to appreciate the veracity of the prosecution case that due to the alleged assault on Dilbodh Singh(deceased) made by the appellants namely Chanda Kharia and Dukhan Kharia by khukhri and lathi resulting in death of the deceased.
34. Informant P.W.-1 Khudi Singh, has stated in his examination-in-chief that on date of occurrence, he along with his father (deceased) had left home to board the vehicle for Palkot for attending the case at Palkot. On the way near Marda River, he sat down to defecate and his father moved forward and, in the meantime, he heard halla of his father from Durka Patra (name of forest) and he ran there. He saw accused Chanda Kharia and Dukhan Kharia armed with khukhri and lathi respectively, assaulting his father and seeing the occurrence he ran back and, on the way, he met Chandra Nath Singh (P.W.-3) and Duryodhan Singh (P.W.-2) and told them about the occurrence. Then, he reached his house and informed his brother Mohan Singh. Thereafter, they returned to the place of occurrence and saw his father was killed and his body was thrown in a ditch. There was mark of injury on his person.
13
2026:JHHC:6687-DB
35. In his cross-examination, informant stated that he saw both the appellants assaulting his father from a distance of 10- 20 yards.
36. Further, in order to test the veracity of the testimony of the informant, this court has gone through to the testimony of P.W.-2, P.W.-3 and P.W.-4.
37. On going to the evidence of P.W.-2 and P.W.-3, this court finds that both these witnesses have deposed that on the date of occurrence in the morning, both were going to Marda River to attend the call of the nature and in the meantime informant Khudi Singh was coming from river side raising halla that accused Dukhan Kharia and Chanda Kharia were assaulting his father and then they went to the place of occurrence and found dead body of Dilbodh Singh was thrown in a ditch and there was mark of injury on head and other parts of body.
38. Likewise, P.W.-4 has also deposed that on 20.01.1986, at 8.30 A.M., in the morning, he was at his house. He heard halla of Khudi Singh and came towards Marda River and saw dead body of Dilbodh Singh.
39. Thus, from the testimony of P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 it is evident that these witnesses have supported the testimony of the sole eyewitness i.e. informant (P.W.1). Further it is evident that testimony of these witnesses remains intact during their cross-examination.
14
2026:JHHC:6687-DB
40. Further, ongoing through the post-mortem report Ext.- 4, it is evident that doctor had found following ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased Dilbodh Singh-
a. Incised wound of 4''x1½"x 1'' on the middle right parietal region on the head cutting scalp right parietal bone meninges and bain matter, partially blood and clots found present in the nose.
b. Incised wound 2½"x1"x skin deep on the Anterior parietal region of the head c. Incised wound3"x1½"x1" on the right side of the occipital region of the head, cutting occipital bone meninges and brain matter partially.
d. Incised wound 1½"x1"xskin deep on the mid parietal regions of the head.
e. Incised wound 1½"x1/2"xskin deep on the left parietal region of the head.
f. Bruise 6½"x4½" on the back back Opinion-The above injuries were ante-mortem in nature and the injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon except injury no.6 which was caused by hard blunt substance. Injury No. 1 and 3 were grievous in nature and sufficient to cause death singly or jointly. All other injuries were simple in nature.
Time elapsed since death- within one to two days nearly. Cause of Death - Shock and Hemorrhage.
41. The Informant has deposed that appellants had assaulted his father with khukhri and lathi and from the post- mortem report Ext.-4, this court finds that there were 5 incised 15 2026:JHHC:6687-DB wounds on the head of the deceased and bruise on the back and all the incised wounds on the head were caused due to sharp cutting weapon and the time elapsed since death was within one to two days. Hence, the ocular evidence of informant is supported by the post-mortem report Ext.-4.
42. Thus, on the basis of the discussion made hereinabove this Court is of the view that the testimony of informant P.W.-1, as a sole eye-witness to the case is trustworthy and reliable and testimony of the informant is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.-2,P.W-3 and P.W-4, who had reached the place of occurrence after hearing halla of the informant and had seen the dead body of the deceased and ocular evidence of informant is also corroborated by the post-mortem report Ext.-4 of the deceased.
43. The ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is contradiction in the testimony of sole eyewitness on the point of his version in the Fardbeyan vis-à-vis his testimony in examination-in-chief which vitiate the entire prosecution case.
44. Learned counsel submitted that in fardbeyan informant stated that when he reached to river Marda he sat down to defecate and after defecation he again followed his father then he saw that the present appellants were assaulting his father but in the examination-in-chief he had stated that when he reached to river Marda he sat down to defecate and when he 16 2026:JHHC:6687-DB heard hulla being raised by his father, then he rushed towards the place wherefrom his father was raising hulla and saw that the appellants were assaulting his father, thus, there is vital contradiction in fardbeyan vis-vis examination-in-chief of the informant.
45. Before appreciating the aforesaid contention, it needs to refer herein the settled position of law that not every discrepancy or contradiction matters for assessing the reliability and credibility of a witness, unless the discrepancies and contradictions are so material that it destroys the substratum of the prosecution case.
46. Law is settled in this regard that merely because there are some contradiction and discrepancies in the testimonies, the same cannot be enough to vitiate the prosecution story, as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2015) 17 SCC 694, wherein, at paragraph-8, it has been held as under: --
"8. While the slight difference in the initial version of the prosecution and the FIR version has been reasonably explained by the cross-examination of PW 6, it is our considered view that minor discrepancies, embellishments and contradictions in the evidence of the eyewitnesses do not destroy the essential fabric of the prosecution case, the core of which remains unaffected. Even if we have to assume that there are certain unnatural features in the evidence of the eyewitnesses the same can be reasonably explained on an accepted proposition of law that different persons would react to the same situation in different manner and there can be no uniform or accepted code of 17 2026:JHHC:6687-DB conduct to judge the correctness of the conduct of the prosecution witnesses i.e. PWs 1 and 2. The relation between PWs 5 and 6 and PWs 1 and 2 and the deceased, in our considered view, by itself, would not discredit the testimony of the said witnesses. There is nothing in the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 which makes their version unworthy of acceptance and their testimony remains unshaken in the elaborate cross-examination undertaken."
47. Likewise, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shyamal Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, reported in (2012) 7 SCC 646, wherein, at paragraphs-46 & 49, it has been held as under:
"46. Then, it was argued that there are certain discrepancies and contradictions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses inasmuch as these witnesses have given different timing as to when they had seen the scuffling and strangulation of the deceased by the accused. It is true that there is some variation in the timing given by PW 8, PW 17 and PW 19. Similarly, there is some variation in the statement of PW 7, PW 9 and PW 11. Certain variations are also pointed out in the statements of PW 2, PW 4 and PW 6 as to the motive of the accused for commission of the crime. Undoubtedly, some minor discrepancies or variations are traceable in the statements of these witnesses. But what the Court has to see is whether these variations are material and affect the case of the prosecution substantially. Every variation may not be enough to adversely affect the case of the prosecution.
49. It is a settled principle of law that the court should examine the statement of a witness in its entirety and read the said statement along with the statement of other witnesses in order to arrive at a rational conclusion. No statement of a witness can be read in part and/or in isolation. We are unable to see any material or serious 18 2026:JHHC:6687-DB contradiction in the statement of these witnesses which may give any advantage to the accused.
48. From perusal of fardbeyan it is evident that informant had stated therein that on fateful day when he reached to river Marda he sat down to defecate and after defecation, he again followed his father then he saw that the present appellants were assaulting his father. Further from perusal examination-in-chief he had stated that when he reached to river Marda he sat down to defecate and when he heard hulla being raised by his father, then he rushed towards the place wherefrom his father was raising hulla and saw that the appellants were assaulting his father. Indeed, there is discrepancy but at that same time there is no contradiction on the point of assault and witnessing the crime by this witness and further the content of fardbeyan and testimony taken into entirety then there is no variation in manner of assault or other factual aspect and this witness has specifically stated that he has seen that the assault were made by the present appellants by lathi and khukhri on his father. Therefore it is considered view of this Court that the said contradiction/discrepancy has no impact on the substratum of the prosecution case.
49. On the basis of the discussion made hereinabove, it is considered view of this Court that the aforesaid contradiction cannot be termed as major contradiction in the view of the judgment as quoted herein above. Further the moment when such type of incident occurs in front of any person then at that 19 2026:JHHC:6687-DB time his mindset is not in normal stage and when they give their testimony in the Court, he just memorising the incident and states in front of trial court and as such in that situation the Court cannot expect that such witnesses will testify graphic detail of the incident. In the instant case the testimony/ version of the sole eyewitness has fully been substantiated by the P.W.2 and P.W.3 in their testimony and further the version of the informant/sole eyewitness on the point of weapon used in alleged crime has also been substantiated by the medical evidence i.e. post-mortem report Ext-4.
50. It is pertinent to note here that the incident was of the year 1986 and the testimony of the sole eyewitness has been recorded after two years, then in such circumstance if there is minor discrepancy in between his testimony vis-à-vis in fardbeyan which is immaterial will not vitiate the entire prosecution case. It is but natural to have some discrepancy and on this ground the prosecution case cannot be brushed aside rather version of the eye witness-P.W. 1 appears natural, reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dhirendra Singh @ Pappu Vs, State of Jharkhand 2021 SCC OnLine SC 155, wherein it has been held as under:
11. .... There may be some contradiction/contradictions with respect to the role attributable to the appellant-accused and/or overt act by the appellant-accused. However, as rightly observed by the High Court, the deposition was 20 2026:JHHC:6687-DB recorded after a period of approximately 15 years, there are bound to be some minor contradiction /contradictions.
However, it is also required to be noted that the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 with the aid of Section 34 IPC. Therefore, when the presence of the appellant-accused at the time of incident and his active participation has been established and proved, it cannot be said that both, the learned Trial Court as well as the High Court, have committed any error in convicting the appellant- accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC
51. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid deduction it is considered view of this Court that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there is contradiction in the testimony of sole eyewitness on the point of his version in the Fardbeyan vis-à-vis his testimony in examination-in-chief which vitiate the entire prosecution case is not fit to be accepted.
52. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that investigating officer of the case was not examined and hence, place of occurrence is not proved.
53. In the aforesaid context it needs to refer herein the settled connotation of law that non-examination of the Investigating Officer (IO) is not fatal to the prosecution case if the eyewitnesses are credible, trustworthy, and of "sterling quality"
and if ocular evidence is reliable and corroborated by other evidence the absence of the investigating officer does not destroy the case of the prosecution.
54. The Apex Court in the case of Ramdeo v. State of U.P., reported in 1995 Supl. (1) SCC, 547, has held that it is always 21 2026:JHHC:6687-DB desirable for the prosecution to examine the Investigating Officer. However, non-examination of the Investigating Officer does not in any way create any dent in the prosecution case, much less affect the credibility or otherwise trustworthy testimony of the eye witness.
55. In the case of Ambika Prasad v. State (Delhi Admn.) AIR 2000 SC 718, it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that non examination of Investigating Officer could not be a ground for disbelieving eye witnesses.
56. Further in the case of Bahadur Naik v. State of Bihar, AIR 2000 SC, 1582, 2000 Cri.L.J. 2466 it was held by the Apex Court that non examination of an Investigating Officer was of no consequence when it could not be shown as to what prejudice had been caused to the appellant by such non- examination.
57. The Hon'ble Apex Court in almost similar circumstances in the case of Ram Gulam Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, 2001 AIR, SCW has observed that if there are witnesses who have given credible and believable evidence as to the place of occurrence then their evidence cannot be discarded merely because the Investigating Officer was not examined. For ready reference the relevant pargraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under:
In our view, in this case also non examination of Investigating Officer has caused no prejudice at all. All that Mr. Mishra could submit was that the examination of the 22 2026:JHHC:6687-DB Investigating Officer would have shown that the occurrence had taken place not in the courtyard but outside on the road. The Investigating Officer was not an eye-witness. The body had already been removed by the Appellants. The Investigating Officer, therefore, could not have given any evidence as to the actual place of occurrence. Their were witnesses who have given credible and believable evidence as to the place of occurrence. Their evidence cannot be discarded merely because the Investigating Officer was not examined. The non- examination of the Investigating Officer has not lead to any prejudice to the Appellants. We, therefore, see no substance in this submission.
58. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law this Court has gone through the inquest report Ext.-3, and found that dead body of the deceased was found from Durka Patra, as deposed by the informant P.W.-1 in his evidence and corroborated by P.W.-4. Further, P.W.-2and P.W.-3, who had rushed to the place of occurrence on raising halla by the informant had also seen the dead body of the deceased at the same place as stated by the P.W.1, therefore it is considered view of this Court that non-examination of investigating officer has not vital impact upon the veracity of the prosecution and further defence has completely failed to establish that any prejudice has been caused to the appellants due to the non-examination of investigating officer, therefore contention for the learned counsel for appellants is totally misplaced.
59. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner has also raised the ground that doctor has not been examined and hence, 23 2026:JHHC:6687-DB the testimony of solitary witness eye witness i.e. the informant P.W-1 ought not be considered as positive.
60. In this regard, ongoing through the impugned judgment, this court finds that at paragraph -7 of the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court had noted that in presence of both the parties the Post-Mortem Report was marked as Ext.-4 as no objection was raised from the side of the defence.
61. Here, it is pertinent to note the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Akhtar v. State of Uttaranchal, (2009) 13 SCC 722, wherein Apex Court has laid down that it is settled position of law that if the genuineness of any document filed by a party is not disputed by the opposite party it can be read as substantive evidence under sub-section (3) of Section 294 CrPC. Accordingly, the post-mortem report, if its genuineness is not disputed by the opposite party, the said post-mortem report can be read as substantive evidence to prove the correctness of its contents without the doctor concerned being examined. The relevant paragraph of this judgment is quoted herein below-
"It has been argued that non-examination of the medical officers concerned is fatal for the prosecution. However, there is no denial of the fact that the defence admitted the genuineness of the injury reports and the post-mortem examination reports before the trial court. So the genuineness and authenticity of the documents stands proved and shall be treated as valid evidence under Section 294 CrPC. It is settled position of law that if the genuineness of any document filed by a party is not 24 2026:JHHC:6687-DB disputed by the opposite party it can be read as substantive evidence under sub-section (3) of Section 294 CrPC. Accordingly, the post-mortem report, if its genuineness is not disputed by the opposite party, the said post-mortem report can be read as substantive evidence to prove the correctness of its contents without the doctor concerned being examined."
(emphasis supplied)
62. In the present case, it is evident from the impugned judgment of conviction that, no objection was raised from the side of the defence and the Post-Mortem Report was marked as Ext.-4. Hence, as per ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Akhtar v. State of Uttaranchal, (supra), this court is of view that in the present case Post-Mortem Report marked Ext.-4, can be considered as substantive evidence to prove the correctness of its contents without the doctor concerned being examined and so, no prejudice was caused to the appellants due the non-examination of the doctor, who had conducted the Post- Mortem Examination.
63. This Court, having discussed the factual aspect and legal position and considering the finding recorded by the learned trial Court, is of the view that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge under section 302 read with 34 of IPC beyond all shadow of doubts against the present appellants, therefore, order impugned requires no interference by this Court.
64. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed.
65. Consequent upon dismissal of the appeal, appellants since are enjoying the suspension of sentence after order passed 25 2026:JHHC:6687-DB by this court directing to release him during pendency of the appeal, the bail bond of appellants are hereby cancelled and appellants are directed to surrender before the learned trial court for serving out the sentence passed against him.
66. Needless to say, that if the appellants will not surrender, the trial Court will take endeavors for securing custody of the appellants to serve out the sentence as inflicted by the learned trial court.
67. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
68. Let a copy of the judgment along with the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) I agree.
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated, the 12th March, 2026.
Birendra / A.F.R.
Uploaded on 13.03.2026.
26