Jharkhand High Court
Lakhiram Hembram @ Lukhiram Hembram ... vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 2 February, 2023
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Subhash Chand
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.99 of 1994
(Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 3rd
February, 1994 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in
Sessions Case No.17 of 1991)
1. Lakhiram Hembram @ Lukhiram Hembram [Died during Pendency of
the appeal]
2. Abhilash Hembram [Died during Pendency of the appeal]
3. Santan Hembram
4. Chhotenath Hembram
5. Anand Hembram [Died during Pendency of the appeal]
.... Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) ..... Respondent
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
.....
For the Appellants : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, A.P.P.
.....
C.A.V. on 25.01.2023 Pronounced on 02.02.2023
Subhash Chand, J.:- Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel
for the State.
1. The instant criminal appeal is preferred on behalf of the
appellants against impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of
sentence dated 3rd February, 1994 passed by the 3rd Additional
Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Case No.17 of 1991, whereby,
the appellants no.1 Lakhiram Hembram @ Lukhiram Hembram and
the appellant no.3 Santan Hembram have been convicted for the
offence under Sections 302/323/325 of the Indian Penal Code and
they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under
-2-
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.99 of 1994
Section 302 of the I.P.C. and no any separate sentence was awarded
to them under Sections 323 and 325 of the I.P.C. The appellant no.2
Abhilash Hembram and the appellant no.4 Chhotenath Hembram are
convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5
years each under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code further they
are convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
one year each under Section 323 of the I.P.C. The appellant no.5
Anand Hembram was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year under Section 323 of the Indian Penal
Code.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that the written information
was given by Lakhan Hembrom at the police station concerned with
the allegations that there was custom in village Kharko on the
occasion of Bandhna festival that all the people of village sing and
dance in the streets of the village. There were two parties in the
village on 13.01.1987 and it was Tuesday night 8 o' clock after
having taken food while singing and dancing reached near the house
of one Anil Rana in a street. At the same time some persons of other
party of the village who also arrived dancing and singing among
them Lukhi Ram Hembrom, Lubin Hembrom, Gome Hembrom,
Santan Hembrom, Chotenath Hembrom, Anand Hembrom, Moti
Hembrom, Ravan Murmu, Obinath Hembrom, Maneshar Hembrom,
Avilash hembrom, Jeevan Hembrom and Madan Soren were also
present. A small harmonium in village was defective which was at the
house of the persons of the party of informant. The persons of the
-3-
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.99 of 1994
opposite party made demand of harmonium which was told to be
defective by the persons of the informant--party. At this the persons
of another party got annoyed and Santan Hembrom, Lukhiram
Hembrom brought iron rod and Chotenath Hembrom, Avilash
Hembrom, Motilal Hembrom brought lathi from the house. Santan
Hembrom and Lukhiram Hembrom both assaulted with iron rod and
Moti Hembrom and Anand Hembrom assaulted with lathi to Sahdeo
Soren on his head and body. On account of the sustaining injuries
inflicted by Santan Hembrom, Sahdeo Soren fell down on the ground.
The informant (Lakhan Hembrom) reached to rescue him at this
Santan Hembrom also assaulted him with rod and Abhilash assaulted
with lathi on his back. Shiv Narayan Hembrom was also assaulted
with iron rod by Santan. Chotenath and Abhilash assaulted with lathi.
Haradhan Hembrom was assaulted by Lukhiram with iron rod.
Mahendra Hembrom was assaulted by Lukhiram with lathi. Dhan
Marandi was assaulted with iron rod by Lukhiram. Sahdeo Soren died
at the place of occurrence. This occurrence was also seen by Pradhan
Soren, Mansingh Hembrom, Shivlal Murmu, Pane Soren, Sahdeo
Marandi and others. All the accused persons fled away after having
seen the Sahdeo Soren dead.
3. On this written information, case crime No.04 of 1987 was
registered with the police station Palajori against 13 named accused
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Investigation Officer after having concluded the investigation
filed charge-sheet against all the 13 named accused before the court
-4-
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.99 of 1994
of Magistrate concerned and the Magistrate concerned after having
taken the cognizance thereon had committed the case for trial to the
court of Sessions Judge.
4. During trial accused Moti Ram Hembrom died on 27th May, 1991
and the trial court framed charge against all the 12 accused persons
and all the accused persons denied the charge framed against them
and claimed to face the trial.
5. On behalf of the prosecution in oral evidence examined P.W.1-
Haradhan Hembram, P.W.2-Dhan Marandi, P.W.3-Sheolal Murmu,
P.W.4-Mandhan Hembram, P.W.5-Sahdeo Marandi, P.W.6-Ram Saran
Soren, P.W.7-Koka Tudu, P.W.8- Pradhan Soren, P.W.9-Pano Soren,
P.W.10-Mansingh Hembram, P.W.11-Mahendra Hembram, P.W.12-
Sheo Narayan Hembram, P.W.13-Lakhan Hembram, P.W.14 Dr.
Akhilesh Pratap Singh and P.W.-15 Ram Saran Yadav (the I.O.).
6. On behalf of the prosecution in documentary evidence adduced
written information Ext.3, injury report of Dhan Marandi Ext.4, injury
report of Haradhan Hembrom Ext.4/1, injury report of Lakhan
Hembrom Ext.4/2, injury report of Mahendra Hembrom Ext.4/3 and
injury report of Sheo Narayan Hembram Ext.4/4, seizure memo of
blood stained soil Ext.2, the signature of P.W.-4 Mandhan Hembram
and Ram Saran Soren over inquest report of deceased Shahdeo
Soren Exts.1 and 1/1 respectively.
7. The statement of accused persons under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C. was also recorded, wherein the accused persons denied the
-5-
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.99 of 1994
incriminating circumstances against them and stated to adduce
defence evidence.
8. On behalf of the defense in oral evidence examined D.W.-1
Manilal Mahto.
9. The learned trial court after hearing the learned counsel for the
parties passed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
against all the accused persons and convicted Lakhiram and Santan
Hembram for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and
sentenced them rigorous imprisonment for life. The trial court also
held Larkhiram Hembram, Santan Hembram along with Abhilash
Hembram and Chhotenath Hembram guilty for the offence under
Section 325 of the I.P.C. but no separate sentence was passed
against Lakhiram Hembram and Santan Hembram for the offence
under Section 325 of the I.P.C. Convict Abhilash Hembram and
Chhotenath Hembram were sentenced for five years for the charge
under Section 325 of the I.P.C. The trial court also convicted Avilash
Hembram, Chhotenath Hembram along with Anand Hembram for the
offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C. and sentenced with
imprisonment for one year. The sentences of convicts Abhilash
Hembram and Chhotenath Hembram were directed to run
consecutively.
10. The aforesaid convicts being aggrieved with the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 3rd February, 1994 preferred
the present criminal appeal on the ground that prosecution examined
altogether 15 witnesses out of them P.W. 1, 2, 3 and 5 are the eye-
-6-
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.99 of 1994
witnesses while P.W.4, 5, 6 and 7 are formal witness, P.W.12 was
tendered witness, P.W.-14 is the doctor who examined the injuries of
the all the injures persons and P.W.-15 is the Investigating Officer.
The medical officer, who had conducted the postmortem of the
deceased was not examined. There was no means of identification of
the accused at the time of occurrence and there is nothing on record
that there was no any premeditation on the part of the
appellants/convict to cause death or to inflict injuries for which they
were held guilty and sentenced. Accordingly, prayed to allow this
criminal appeal and to set aside the impugned judgment of conviction
and sentence and also prayed to acquit all the appellants/convicts.
11. During pendency of this criminal appeal, the appellant no.1
Lakhiram Hembram @ Lukhiram Hembram and appellant no.5 Anand
Hembram had died. No application was moved on behalf of their
legal heirs to pursue this criminal appeal. Accordingly, this criminal
appeal was abated; so far as it relates to appellant nos.1 and 5 on
30th April, 2019. Appellant no.4 Chhotenath Hembram was reported
to be traceless and his bail bonds were cancelled vide order dated 2nd
April, 2019. The appellant no.2 Abhilash Hembram also died and no
legal representative on his behalf is intending to purse the appeal.
Hence, the instant appeal also stands abated against him vide order
dated 25th January, 2023.
12. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.P.P. for
the State of Jharkhand and perused the materials available on
record.
-7-
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.99 of 1994
13. To decide the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment
of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant, the
evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is to be re-
appreciated herein.
14. P.W.-1 Haradhan Hembrom in his examination-in-chief
stated that the occurrence was of Tuesday 8 o' clock of night four
years ago from that day. On eve of festival of Bandhna, all the
people of village had been dancing and singing as well. When they
reached near the door of house of Anil Rana, the persons of another
group asked for the harmonium. It was responded that the
harmonium was defective and same was kept at the house. Upon
hearing this, the persons of another group enraged.
Lakhiram, Santan, Motilal, Anand and Abhilash Hembrom
went to the house of Muneshwar and brought the weapons
from his house. Lukhiram and Santan were armed with iron
rod. Motilal, Anand and Abhilash were armed with lathi.
Chhotenath, Lobin, Gameshwar, Ravan Murmu, Abhinath
Hembrom, Maneshwar Hembrom, Jeevan Hembrom and
Madan Soren had also accompanied them. Santan assaulted
with iron rod on the forehead of Sahdeo Soren and Sahdeo
Soren fell down on the ground. The blood was oozing and to
rescue him Lakhiram came and he was also assaulted with iron rod
on his hand. Dhan Marandi was also assaulted with iron rod by
Lakhiram with iron rod. Lakhan Hembrom was assaulted by Santan
with iron rod and by Abhilash with lathi. Mahendra was assaulted by
-8-
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.99 of 1994
Motilal with lathi and Sheonarayan was assaulted by Santan with iron
rod. Sahdeo died on the spot. All the accused persons fled away.
In cross-examination, this witness stated that it was festival of
bandhna and they had not drunk wine. The wine was offered to
Maadi Devta and same was also distributed after having taken food.
All the young and old persons were dancing and singing. Both group
came face to face in front of house of Anil Rana. First of all Shahdeo
Soren was assaulted thereafter Shiv Narayan was assaulted. Lakhan
also became injured, thereafter, Mahendra and Dhan Marandi was
also assaulted. The harmonium was defective for one year and all the
accused persons had knowledge of the same.
15. P.W.-2 Dhan Marandi in his examination-in-chief stated that
the occurrence was of four and half year ago and it was Tuesday 8 o'
clock of night. On the eve of Bandhna festival, all were dancing and
singing as they reached near the house of Anil Rana, the persons of
another group also came dancing and singing. They made demand of
harmonium which was defective. On refusal of the same, all became
enraged. Santan, Obinath were armed with iron rod, Motilal, Obinath
and Anand were also armed with lathi. Santan and Lakhiram
assaulted with iron rod to Shahdeo on his forehead. He was
also assaulted by Moti Ram with lathi and Shahdeo Soren
succumbed to injuries on the spot.
In cross-examination, this witness says that Bandhna festival
was the biggest festival of them and it was celebrated for five days
but in their village it was celebrated for three to four days. On the
-9-
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.99 of 1994
occasion of this festival, all the persons eat and drink. On the date of
occurrence, it was last day of the festival. Shahdeo had fallen on the
ground and he was also beaten indiscriminately. This witness further
says that he, Lakhan and Shiv Narayan all were assaulted.
16. P.W.-3 Sheo Lal Murmu in his examination-in-chief stated
that the occurrence was of four years ago 8 o' clock of night of
Tuesday. He was sitting at the door of his house and was watching
singing and dancing as they reached at the door of Anil Rana,
persons of both the groups came face to face. The persons of one
group made demand of harmonium and it was told by the
group that same was not in working condition and at this
they enraged and Lakhi Ram, Santan, Motilal and Abhilash
had brought the weapon from the house of Maneshwar.
Lakhiram and Santan assaulted Shahdeo with iron rod and
he fell down on the ground. Haradhan, Shivnarayan and
Lakhan were also assaulted and sustained injuries. Dhan was
assaulted by Lakhi Ram with iron rod. Sheo Narayan was
assaulted by Abhilash, Santan and Chhotenath while Lakhan
was assaulted by Abhilash. Shahdeo Soren died on account of
sustaining injuries at the spot. One group belong to Haradhan while
another group belong to accused persons.
In cross-examination, this witness says that Kharko was the
large basti of Santhal. Harmonium was demanded by Santan from
Shahdeo. First of all Shahdeo was assaulted thereafter other
were assaulted simultaneously.
- 10 -
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.99 of 1994
17. P.W.-4 Mandhan Hembrom in his examination-in-chief
stated that the inquest report of the deceased was prepared on
which he also put his signature which was marked as Ext.1 and
Ramsharan Soren also put his signature over the same which was
marked Ext.1/1.
18. P.W.-5 Sahdeo Marandi in his examination-in-chief stated
that after having heard alarm he reached at the place of occurrence.
Lukhiram and Santan had assaulted Sahdeo with iron rod on
his forehead. Sahdeo fell down. Dhan was assaulted by
Lukhiram and Santan. Lakhan was also assaulted by them.
Haradhan was also assaulted with iron rod. The leg of Dhan
fractured. Sahdeo died at the place of occurrence. This witness
also identify all the accused persons in the dock.
In cross-examination, this witness stated that in village Kharko
there is basti of 80 to 100 houses and is basti of Santhals which is
situated both sides of streets. Sahdeo was also lying in the street and
remained overnight there since he had died. This witness further
stated that others who were injured were taken to their house.
19. P.W.-6 Ram Saran Soren stated that the blood stained
soil was taken in custody by the I.O. from the place of occurrence.
Seizure memo was prepared and he put his signature over the same
which was marked Ext.2.
20. P.W.-7 Koka Tudu also proved the seizure memo of blood
stained soil and stated that he also put his thumb impression
thereon.
- 11 -
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.99 of 1994
21. P.W.-8 Pradhan Soren in his examination-in-chief stated that
the occurrence was of Tuesday 8 o'clock of night. He had heard the
hue and cry from his house and he came out of his house and
reached there where he saw that Santan, Lakhiram were armed with
iron rod and others were armed with Lathi. Sahdeo Soren was
assaulted by Santan on his head. Lakhiram assaulted Dhan
on his leg with iron rod. Sahdeo Soren fell down on the spot
on account of sustaining head injury. Haradhan came to
rescue and he was also assaulted by Lakhiram with iron rod.
Sahdeo Soren died at the spot. Shiv Narayan was also
assaulted by Chhotenath and Santan. This witness identifies all
the accused persons in the dock.
In cross-examination, this witness says that he had participated
in the process who were singing and dancing. The group of the
accused persons also came from other side and he had seen Sahdeo
being assaulted on his forehead with iron rod by Santan. Santan had
given three iron blow on the head of Sahdeo due to which he died at
the spot. Those who came to rescue were also assaulted by the
accused persons. Haradhan was also assaulted by Lakhi ram with
iron rod. Lakhan was assaulted by Abhinash with Lathi. Sheo Narayan
was assaulted by Sahdeo. In the occurrence, the leg of Dhan Marandi
also fractured.
22. P.W.-9 Pano Soren in his examination-in-chief stated that the
occurrence was of Tuesday 8 o' clock of night. On hearing hue and
cry he reached in front of house of Anil Rana and saw accused
- 12 -
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.99 of 1994
persons Lakhiram, Santan armed with rod and others were armed
with lathi. Sahdeo Soren was assaulted by Lakhiram and
Santan with iron rod. Dhan was assaulted by Larkhiram with iron
rod on his leg.
In cross-examination, this witness says that the occurrence
took place in front of house of Anil Rana. Sahdeo Soren was lying on
the ground and he had died. The blood was oozing from his
forehead.
23. P.W.-10 Mansingh Hembrom in his examination-in-chief
stated that upon hearing hue and cry he reached to the place of
occurrence and saw Sahdeo Soren was assaulted by Lakhiram
and Santan with rod over his forehead. He had fell down on
the ground and died. He identify all the accused persons at the
dock.
In cross-examination, this witness stated that he had seen
Sahdeo Soren lying on the ground dead. In the morning he came to
know who had assaulted to Sahdeo.
24. P.W.-11 Mahendra Hembrom in his examination in chief
supported the prosecution story and in cross-examination, this
witness says that he had seen Sahdeo fallen on the ground in
pool of blood and died. He was also assaulted with lathi by
the accused persons. He also saw Haradhan, Lakhan,
Sheonarayan, Dhan and others injured in this occurrence. It
was a moon light on the occasion of ever of Bandhna festival.
25. P.W.-12 Sheo Narain Hembram was the tendered witness.
- 13 -
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.99 of 1994
26. P.W.-13 Lakhan Hembram (the informant) in his
examination-in-chief stated that the occurrence was of 13th January,
1987. It was Tuesday 8 o' clock of night and it was occasion of
Bandhna festival. After having offered puja singing and dancing was
going on. He, Haradhan, Dhan, Sheonarayan, Pradhan Soren, Sahdeo
and others all reached in front of house of Anil Rana in the street and
at the same time Lakhiram, Lubin, Santan, Chhotenath, Anand
Hembram, Motilal, Ravan, Avinath, Maneshwar, Abhilash, Jeevan
Hembram, Gome all 13 persons came there. Santan and Lakhiram
were armed with iron rod and other persons were armed
with lathi and they assaulted Sahdeo Soren. Lakhiram and
Santan assaulted Sahdeo with iron rod on the forehead,
whereby he fell down and died. Santan also assaulted with
iron rod on his hand and Abhilash assaulted him with lathi on
his back and his hand fractured. Haradhan, Mahendra, Dhan
and Sheonarayn were also assaulted by the accused persons.
The accused persons had made demand of harmonium which was
defective. The written information was given by him which was
written by Ramsharan Yadav at his behest he put his
signature thereon which was marked Ext.3.
In cross-examination, this witness says that on the eve of
Bandhna festival it was not the custom that people dance after
having drunken. All the persons of their group after having taken
food were singing and dancing. Lakhiram and Santan had assaulted
to Sahdeo with rod (sabbal), whereby he fell down on the ground
- 14 -
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.99 of 1994
and died. He was also assaulted by Santan and Abhilash. Santan
gave one rod blow on his hand while Abhilash assaulted with lathi on
his back. Sheonarayan, Haradhan and Mahendra were also
assaulted. He gave the information of the occurrence to the police.
Ram Sharan had called the police at the spot and his fard beyan was
recorded by the police on which he put his signature.
27. P.W.-14 Dr. Akhilesh Pratap Singh who examined the
injuries of the injured persons stated that on 14th January, 1987 he
was posted as a Medical Officer State Dispensary at Palajori. On that
day at 11:00 a.m. he examined Dhan Marandi and found following
injuries :
i. Lacerated wound 3" x ½" x ½" on the front of left leg
with fracture of underlying bone tibia.
Nature grievous caused by hard blunt substance.
Aged within 24 hrs.
On the same day he also examined Lakhiram Hembram and
found following injury :
i. Dislocation of left elbow.
Nature grievous caused by hard blunt substance.
Aged within 24 hrs.
On the same day he also examined Haradhan Hembram and
found following injury :
i. Lacerated wound ¼" x ¼" x ¼" on the back of right
hand.
ii. Bruise 3" x 3" on back of right hand.
Nature simple caused by hard blunt substance.
Age within 24 hrs.
On the same day he also examined Mahendra Hembram and
found following injury :
i. Bruise 4"x 3"on the back just below the neck.
ii. Bruise 3"x 3" on the left side back over scapula bone.
Nature simple caused by hard blunt substance.
Age within 24 hrs.
- 15 -
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.99 of 1994
On the same day he also examined Sheo Narayan Hembram
and found following injury :
i. Lacerated wound ½"x ¼"x ¼"on back of head.
ii. Bruise 2"x2"on outer side of right upper arm.
Nature simple caused by hard blunt substance.
Age within 24 hrs.
All the injury reports were in his handwriting and signature
which were marked as Ext.4 to 4/4.
28. P.W.-15 Ram Saran Yadav, the Investigation Officer in his
examination-in-chief stated that on the written informant of Lakhan
Hembram he has lodged the F.I.R. of Palajori P.S. Case No.04 of 87.
He also recorded the re-statement of informant and also recorded
the statement of injured Bhawan Marandi. He also inspected the
place of occurrence which was in village Kharko in front of house of
Anil Rana in a street and saw the dead body of the deceased Sahdeo
Soren lying thereon. The blood was oozing from the forehead and it
was in pool of blood and there were two injuries. The inquest-report
was also prepared by him and he also prepared the seizure memo of
the blood stained soil. Thereafter, he recorded the statements of
injured, namely, Sheonarayan Hembram, Haradhan Hembram,
Mahendra Hembram and witnesses, namely, Pradhan Soren,
Mansingh Hembram, Anil Rana, Sheolal Murmu, Sahdeo Marandi. He
inspected the body of injured Sheolal Hembram, Haradhan
Hembram, Mahendra Hembram and injured accused Muneshwar
Hembram and prepared the inquest report and sent them to Palajori
hospital for treatment. The postmortem report was also received by
him and entry of the same was made in the case-diary. After
- 16 -
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.99 of 1994
completing the investigation, filed charge-sheet which is marked
Ext.5.
In cross-examination, this witness says that witness--Haradhan
Hembram had told him that on the occasion of Bandhna all after
having eaten and drunk were singing and dancing reached near the
house of Anil Rana and the occurrence took place on the issue of
demand of Harmonium.
29. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that this
criminal appeal was preferred on behalf of the five
appellants/convicts out of them Lakhiram Hembram @ Lukhiram
Hembram, Abhilash Hembram and Anand Hembram had died and no
one come forward to pursue the appeal and the same was abetted so
far as it relates to them. Appellant--Chhotenath Hembram has been
traceless and Santan Hembram is alive. From impugned judgment, it
appears that the appellant Santan Hembrom along with co-accused
Lakhiram Hembram were convicted for the offence under Section 302
of I.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
life. Appellant--Santan Hembrom was also convicted along with co-
accused Abhilash Hembrom and Chhotenath Hembrom for the
offence under Section 325 of I.P.C. and the appellant/accused
Chhotenath Hembrom was also held guilty for the offence under
Section 325 of the I.P.C. and for the same he was sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and also held guilty for
the offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C. and was sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Both the sentences
- 17 -
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.99 of 1994
passed against the appellants/convicts Abhilash Hembrom and
Chhotenath Hembrom were directed to run consecutively.
Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that
conviction of the appellant Santan for the offence under Section 302
of the I.P.C. along with Lakhiram was upheld by the trial court on the
basis of the testimony of the injured eye-witnesses and other eye-
witnesses as well. On behalf of the prosecution, the postmortem
report of deceased Sahdeo Soren was not adduced in evidence and
same was not proved by examining the doctor, who had conducted
the postmortem examination, as such, the cause of death is not
proved. It is further submitted that the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence passed against the appellants--Santan and
Lakhiram as well for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C.
bears infirmity and same is based on the perverse finding. Moreover,
the court below had not held guilty to appellant--Lakhiram and
Santan for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. read with
Section 34 of the I.P.C. or Section 149 of the I.P.C. There is no
finding of the court below that the appellant Santan had shared the
common intention along with co-accused Lakhi Ram in committing
murder of Sahdeo Soren or he had shared the common object in
commission of murder of Sahdeo Soren having formed an unlawful
assembly armed with deadly weapon had committed murder in
prosecution of common object. So far as the conviction of appellant--
Chhotenath Hembram under Section 325 or 323 of the I.P.C. is
concerned, as per evidence on record there were more than five
- 18 -
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.99 of 1994
accused were armed with deadly weapon. The appellant Chhotenath
is also alleged to have armed with lathi along with other co-accused.
There is no evidence against him attributing specific role to him in
inflicting grievous injury with lathi. Accordingly, learned counsel for
the appellants contended to acquit both the appellants for the charge
framed against them.
30. Per contra, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State
vehemently opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel
for the appellants and contended that the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence passed by the learned trial court against the
appellants does not bear any infirmity as the prosecution had been
successful to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt by adducing
the eye-witness of the occurrence and maximum witness are the
injured eye-witness and their testimony cannot be denied as their
injury reports are also proved by the doctor who had examined them.
So far as the death of Sahdeo Soren is concerned, as per eye-witness
account, it was Lakhiram and Santan, who had assaulted him with
iron rod and he died on the spot. Sahdeo Soren fell down on the
ground and the blood was also oozing. As per eye-witness account
he succumbed to the injuries at the spot, therefore, if the
postmortem report is not proved by the doctor, same cannot be said
to be fatal to the prosecution case. More so, the deceased had died
at the spot on account of sustaining injuries. As per statement of
Investigating Officer (P.W.-15), though he collected the postmortem
report of deceased and entry of the same was made by him in the
- 19 -
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.99 of 1994
case diary but the same was not produced on behalf of the
prosecution and doctor also did not prove the same. On the basis of
latches on the part of the I.O. not adducing the postmortem report
along with the charge-sheet, the prosecution case which is
thoroughly proved with the testimony of eye-witnesses cannot be
discredited.
31. The prosecution case is based on direct evidence. The
occurrence took place on the issue of demand of harmonium on the
occasion of Bandhna festival which was being celebrated in the
village Kharko. The two groups were celebrating Bandhna festival by
singing and dancing and the persons of the accused group made
demand of harmonium to celebrate the festival and it was told that
same was not in working condition. At this the accused persons
enraged and assaulted to the persons of the informant's side. This
motive of the occurrence is proved from the testimony of all
the eye-witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution.
Though in case of direct evidence, the motive has no
significance, yet the motive is also given in the F.I.R. itself
and same is also proved by the prosecution.
On behalf of the prosecution, P.W.-1 Haradhan Hembram,
P.W.-2 Dhan Marandi, P.W.-11 Mahendra Hembram and P.W.-
13 Lakhan Hembram are the injured eye-witness of the
occurrence.
32. P.W.-13 Lakhan Hembram has proved the contents of the
written information as Ext.3 on the basis of which the F.I.R. was
- 20 -
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.99 of 1994
lodged. This injured eye-witness has also stated that on
13.01.1987 at 8 o' clock of night on the eve of Bandhna festival he
along with Haradhan, Dhan, Sheo Narayan, Pradhan Soren, Sahdeo
and others while singing and dancing reached near the house of Anil
Rana in a street. At the same time Lakhiram, Lubin, Santan,
Chhotenath, Anand Hembram, Moti lal, Ravan, Obinath, Maneshwar,
Abhilash, Jeevan Hembram, Gome, all 13 came there. Lakhiram
and Santan both had assaulted to Sahdeo with iron rod
which hit on his head who fell down on the ground and died
at the place of occurrence. This witness also stated that Santan
had also assaulted him with iron rod on his hand and his hand
fractured. Abhilash assaulted with lathi on his back. Haradhan,
Mahendra, Dhan and Sheo Narayn were also assaulted by the
accused persons. This witness also stated that he went to the police
station concerned to inform in regard to the occurrence. The
contents of written information were written by Ram Sharan Yadav
on which he put his signature which was marked Ext.3. This witness
also stated that on the occasion of Bandhna festival it was not
custom of drinking and eating. The dispute arose on demand of
harmonium which was not in working condition. The injury report of
this witness is also proved by P.W.-14 Dr. Akhilesh Pratap Singh,
who found dislocation of left elbow. Nature of injury was
grievous caused by hard and blunt object.
33. P.W.-1 Haradhan Hembram is also the injured eye-witness.
This witness has stated that on the eve of Bandhna festival at 8 o'
- 21 -
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.99 of 1994
clock of night while singing and dancing near the house of Anil Rana,
the persons of another group of the village Kharko came dancing and
singing and made demand of harmonium, the same being in
defective condition could not be given to them which enraged the
accused persons and all the accused persons went to the house
of Maneshwar and brought the weapons from his house.
Lakhiram and Santan armed with iron rod, Motilal, Abhilash
were armed with lathi. Chhotenath, Lobin, Gameshwar,
Ravan Murmu, Abhinath Hembroam, Maneshwar hembram,
Jeevan Hembram and Madan Soren were also with them.
Sahdeo Soren was inflicted with iron rod by Santan which hit
on his head, whereby Sahdeo fell down on the ground and
died at the spot. When they came to rescue then Lakhiram
assaulted him on his hand by rod. Dhan Marandi was also assaulted
by Lakhiram with iron rod. This witness was also cross-examined on
behalf of the accused persons but on contrary conclusion could be
drawn in his statement. The injuries of this witness was also
examined by P.W.-14 Dr. Akhilesh Pratap Singh, who examined
his injuries on 14th January, 1987 at 11:00 a.m. and found
Lacerated wound ¼" x ¼" x ¼" on the back of right hand,
Bruise 3" x 3" on back of right hand. The nature of the injury
was simple caused by hard blunt substance.
34. P.W.-2 Dhan Marandi is also the injured eye-witness and he
has also corroborated the prosecution story. This witness stated that
the occurrence took place in front of house of Anil Rana on the
- 22 -
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.99 of 1994
occasion of Bandhna festival at 8 o' clock of night of Tuesday.
Lakhiram, Santan, Chhotenath Hembram, Gameshwar, Lubin, Ravan
Murmu, Obinath Hembram, Abhilash, Maneshwar Hembram, Jeevan
Hembram, Madan Soren, Motilal Hembram, Anand Hembram, all the
accused persons made demand of harmonium, the same being in
defective condition could not be given which enraged the accused
persons and they brought the weapons from the house of
Maneshwar. Santan and Obinath were armed with rod, Motilal,
Obinath and Anand were armed with lathi. Sahdeo Soren was
assaulted by Santan and Lakhiram with iron rod which hit on
his head and he died on the spot. He also came to rescue. He
Haradhan, Lakhan and Sheo Narayan came to rescue and all were
assaulted by the accused persons. He was assaulted by Lakhiram
with iron rod. Haradhan was also assaulted by Lakhiram with iron
rod. Lakhan was assaulted by Santan with iron rod and Abhilash
assaulted with lathi. Sahdeo Soren died on spot on account of
sustaining injuries. The injury of this witness was examined by the
doctor and found lacerated wound 3" x ½" x ½" on the front
of left leg with fracture of underlying bone tibia. The nature
of injury was grievous caused by hard blunt substance.
35. P.W.-11 Mahendra Hembram is also the injured eye-
witness. This witness also stated that at the time of occurrence on
the occurrence of Bandhna festival singing and dancing was going
on. The persons of another group 13 in number came from the
opposite side in front of house of Anil Rana. Lakhiram and Santan
- 23 -
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.99 of 1994
were armed with iron rod while others were armed with lathi.
Sahdeo Soren was assaulted by Lakhiram and Santan by iron
rod, who fell down on the ground and died on the spot.
Haradhan, Lakhan, Sheo Narayan, Dhan and others came to rescue
and they were also assaulted by the accused persons. Motilal had
assaulted him with lathi which hit on his back and arm. Haradhan
was assaulted by Lakhiram with iron rod. Lakhan was assaulted by
Lakhiram with iron rod. The accused persons had made demand of
harmonium and on the very issue this occurrence took place. In
cross-examination, this witness also stated that he had seen the
deceased Sahdeo lying in pool of blood, who died at the spot due to
sustaining injuries. On the occasion of Bandhna festival it was moon-
light.
The injury report of this witness was also proved by the P.W.-
14 Dr. Akhilesh Pratap Singh, who stated that on 14th January,
1987, he examined the injuries of Mahendra Hembram and found
Bruise 4"x 3"on the back just below the neck. Bruise 3"x 3"
on the left side back over scapula bone. The nature of the
injury was simple caused by hard blunt substance.
36. In addition to the aforesaid injured eye-witness, the witness
P.W.-3 Sheolal Murmu, P.W.-5 Shahdeo Marandi, P.W.-8
Pradhan Soren, P.W.-9 Pane Soren are the eye-witness of the
occurrence and they have supported the prosecution story
and stated that on the eve of Bandhna festival when two groups of
the village while singing and dancing came in front of house of Anil
- 24 -
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.99 of 1994
Rana, the persons of opposite group made demand of harmonium.
The same being in defective condition could not be given which
enraged the persons of the accused group, who reached to the
house of Maneshwar and brought the weapons from there. Santan
and Lakhiram were armed with iron rod while others were
armed with lathi. Santan and Lakhiram both assaulted to
Sahdeo Soren which hit on his head and he died on the spot
on account of sustaining injuries. The injured witness, namely,
P.W.-1 Haradhan Hembram, P.W.-2 Dhan Marandi, P.W.-11
Mahendra Hembram, P.W.-13 Lakhan Hembram and P.W.-12 Sheo
Narayan Hembram also came to rescue. Sahdeo Soren was assaulted
by the accused persons with iron rod and lathi as well. There is no
contradiction in testimony of these witnesses deposed before the trial
court and the statement given by these witnesses to the I.O. during
investigation.
37. P.W.-15 Ram Sharan Yadav, the Investigating Officer
was examined on behalf of the prosecution. He has proved the
place of occurrence which is just in front of house of Anil
Kumar Rana in village Kharko in a street and he also proved the
inquest report of the deceased and stated that he also got the
postmortem conducted of the deceased and same was also received
by him and entry of the same was made in the case-diary. This
witness also stated that he also prepared the seizure memo of the
blood stained soil and also recorded the statement of injured
witness--Sheo Narayan Hembram, Haradhan Hembram, Mahendra
- 25 -
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.99 of 1994
Hembram and Lakhan Hembram as well. He also recorded the
statement of eye-witness, Pane Soren, Mansingh Hembram, Sahdeo
Marandi and also received the injury reports of the injured witnesses.
The prosecution could bring any contradiction. In cross-examination
this witness says that all the eye-witnesses of the occurrence had
narrated in regard to the occurrence. The testimony of all the eye-
witnesses are found in consonance with the statement given to the
I.O. under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
38. Therefore, the witness who belong to the same group; but their
testimony cannot be discarded on the sole ground, more so the same
is found free from embellishment cogent and trustworthy in view of
the settled propositions of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court as shown hereunder :
38(i). The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Shankar Shinde
and Others vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2008) 2 SCC
670 in paragraph 9 has held as under :
"9. The trial court was not justified in holding that because PW 11 was
an injured witness he may have reason to falsely implicate the
accused. However, as rightly observed by the trial court and the High
Court, the evidence of PWs 12 and 13 does not suffer from any
deficiency. PWs 11, 12 and 13 were cross-examined at length but
nothing substantial could be elicited to destroy the credibility of their
version. As a matter of fact, the evidence of injured person who is
examined as a witness lends more credence, because normally he
would not falsely implicate a person thereby protecting the actual
assailant."
38(ii). The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar
Chaudhary and Others vs. State of Bihar reported in (2008) 12
SCC 173 in paragraph 8 has held as under :
"8. Insofar as the question of creditworthiness of the evidence of
relatives of the victim is concerned, it is well settled that though the
- 26 -
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.99 of 1994
court has to scrutinise such evidence with greater care and caution
but such evidence cannot be discarded on the sole ground of their
interest in the prosecution. The relationship per se does not affect the
credibility of a witness. Merely because a witness happens to be a
relative of the victim of the crime, he/she cannot be characterised as
an "interested" witness. It is trite that the term "interested"
postulates that the person concerned has some direct or indirect
interest in seeing that the accused is somehow or the other convicted
either because he had some animus with the accused or for some
other oblique motive."
38(iii). The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Leela Ram (dead)
through Duli Chand vs. State of Harayana and another
reported in (1999) 9 SCC 525 in paragraph 12 has held as under :
"12. It is indeed necessary to note that one hardly comes across a
witness whose evidence does not contain some exaggeration or
embellishment -- sometimes there could even be a deliberate attempt
to offer embellishment and sometimes in their overanxiety they may
give a slightly exaggerated account. The court can sift the chaff from
the grain and find out the truth from the testimony of the witnesses.
Total repulsion of the evidence is unnecessary. The evidence is to be
considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. If this element
is satisfied, it ought to inspire confidence in the mind of the court to
accept the stated evidence though not however in the absence of the
same."
39. From the testimony of these injured eye-witness and other eye-
witness it is proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution that
it was appellants Santan and Lakhiram, who had assaulted to the
deceased Shahdeo Soren with iron rod which hit on his forehead
whereby he fell down on the ground in a pool of blood and died at
the spot. Though on behalf of the prosecution, the postmortem
report of the deceased Shahdeo Soren is not adduced and same is
not proved by adducing the doctor, who had conducted the
postmortem examination of the deceased.
40. P.W.-15 Ram Sharan Yadav, the Investigating Officer has
stated that he had collected the postmortem report of the deceased
and the entry of the same was also made, as such, certainly the
postmortem was also conducted and report was also
- 27 -
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.99 of 1994
received by the I.O. but there is remissness on the part of
the I.O. that he did not produce the same along with the
charge-sheet and also did not record the statement of the
doctor, who had conducted the postmortem of the deceased.
Non-production of the postmortem report and not proving
the same by producing the doctor is not found fatal in the
present case, since, the deceased Sahdeo Soren died at the
spot after having sustained the injuries which were inflicted
to him by appellants--Santan and Lakhiram which is well
proved from the testimony of the injured eye-witnesses and
other eye-witness as well. If the death of deceased-Sahdeo Soren
would have caused later on, in that circumstance, the postmortem
report would have been relevant to show the proximate cause of
death since after sustaining injuries from iron rod Sahdeo Soren died
at the spot, as per eye-witness account, therefore, the non-
production of postmortem report and no proving the same by
producing the doctor is not found fatal to the prosecution case. More
so, the testimony of injured eye-witness and other eye-witness
account found trustworthy which inspire confidence of the Court to
believe the same.
41. It is also evident from the evidence on record that the I.O. had
designedly not produced the postmortem of the deceased, though
the same was conducted and report of the same was also collected
by him from the doctor who had conducted the postmortem
examination. In such, circumstances, giving benefit of defective
- 28 -
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.99 of 1994
investigation to the accused would tantamount to play in the hand of
I.O. which is designedly defective. The contaminated conduct of the
officials should not stand in way of the court while evaluating the
evidence on record, otherwise the designed mischief would be
perpetuated and justice would be denied to the victim party.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dhanaj Singh @ Shera
and others vs. State of Punjab reported in 2004 Cri.L.J., 1807
in paragraph nos.5, 6 and 7 has held as under :
"5. In the case of a defective investigation the Court has to be
circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in
acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so
would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating
officer if the investigation is designedly defective. ( See Karnel Singh
vs. State of M.P.: (1995) 5 SCC 518).
6. In Paras Yadav and Ors. v. State of Bihar: (1999) 2 SCC 126 it was
held that if the lapse or omission is committed by the investigating
agency or because of negligence the prosecution evidence is required
to be examined dehors such omissions to find out whether the said
evidence is reliable or not. The contaminated conduct of officials
should not stand on the way of evaluating the evidence by the courts;
otherwise the designed mischief would be perpetuated and justice
would be denied to the complainant party.
7. As was observed in Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar and Ors.:
(1998) 4 SCC 517, if primacy is given to such designed or negligent
investigation, to the omission or lapses by perfunctory investigation
or omissions, the faith and confidence of the people would be shaken
not only in the Law enforcing agency but also in the administration of
justice. The view as again reiterated in Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh
and Ors.,:(2003) 2 SCC 518. As noted in Amar Singh's case(supra) it
would have been certainly better if the firearms were sent to the
Forensic Test Laboratory for comparison. But the report of the
Ballistic Expert would be in the nature of an expert opinion without
any conclusiveness attached to it. When the direct testimony of the
eye-witnesses corroborated by the medical evidence fully establishes
the prosecution version failure or omission of negligence on part of
the IO cannot affect credibility of the prosecution version."
42. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the trial
court had not framed the charge against the accused Santan and
other accused with the help of Section 34 or 149 of the I.P.C. From
the testimony of eye-witnesses, two accused, namely, Lakhiram and
- 29 -
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.99 of 1994
Santan had assaulted the deceased--Sahdeo Soren. On account of
inflicting the injuries by which accused/assailant, the deceased
succumbed to injuries is not ascertained in lack of postmortem
report, as such, the conviction of the appellant Santan cannot be
upheld.
43. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is not
sustainable in view of the evidence on record as all the injured eye-
witness and other eye-witnesses have stated that Lakhiram and
Santan both were armed with iron rod and both had assaulted to the
deceased--Sahdeo Soren. On account of sustaining injuries inflicting
with iron rod Sahdeo Soren fell down on the ground in a pool of
blood and died at the spot. In such circumstance, it is not necessary
to determine that the deceased died on account of sustaining injuries
inflicted by which of two of the assailants, namely, Lakhiram and
Santan. From the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, it is
found that all the accused persons who were 13 in number at the
time of occurrence and all were armed with deadly weapons had
formed an unlawful assembly. On the moment of refusal of handing
over the harmonium, the accused persons reached to the house of
co-accused Maneshwar after having enraged and brought weapons
from the house of Maneshwar whose house was adjacent to the
place of occurrence, as evident from the evidence on record. The
accused Santan and Lakhiram came from the house of Maneshwar
armed with iron rod while the other accused came armed with lathi
- 30 -
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.99 of 1994
whose names have been narrated by the eye-witnesses in their
testimony.
The appellant Santan and co-accused Lakhiram who died
during pendency of this appeal both armed with iron rod came from
the house of Maneshwar and inflicted the fatal blow to Sahdeo Soren.
Both these accused persons had gone to the house of
Maneshwar and came back armed with iron rod then
inflicted injuries to Sahdeo Soren which was sufficient in
ordinary course of nature to cause death of Sahdeo Soren
reflected sharing the common intention to commit murder of
Sahdeo Soren. Even if the trial court had not framed the charge
against the accused Lakhiram with the help of Section 34 or 149 of
the I.P.C., yet from the testimony of the injured eye-witness and
other eye-witness account it is found that both the appellants
Lakhiram and Santan had shared the common intention in
commission of murder of the deceased Sahdeo Soren. As such, the
conviction of appellants Santan and Lakhiram under Section 302 read
with Section 34 of the I.P.C. is upheld.
44. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chittarmal v. State of
Rajasthan reported in (2003) 2 SCC 266 in paragraph 14 held as
under :
"14. It is well settled by a catena of decisions that Section 34 as well
as Section 149 deal with liability for constructive criminality i.e.
vicarious liability of a person for acts of others. Both the sections deal
with combinations of persons who become punishable as sharers in
an offence. Thus they have a certain resemblance and may to some
extent overlap. But a clear distinction is made out between common
intention and common object in that common intention denotes
action in concert and necessarily postulates the existence of a
prearranged plan implying a prior meeting of the minds, while
common object does not necessarily require proof of prior meeting of
- 31 -
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.99 of 1994
minds or preconcert. Though there is a substantial difference
between the two sections, they also to some extent overlap and it is a
question to be determined on the facts of each case whether the
charge under Section 149 overlaps the ground covered by Section 34.
Thus, if several persons numbering five or more, do an act and intend
to do it, both Section 34 and Section 149 may apply. If the common
object does not necessarily involve a common intention, then the
substitution of Section 34 for Section 149 might result in prejudice to
the accused and ought not, therefore, to be permitted. But if it does
involve a common intention then the substitution of Section 34 for
Section 149 must be held to be a formal matter. Whether such
recourse can be had or not must depend on the facts of each case.
The non-applicability of Section 149 is, therefore, no bar in convicting
the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, if the
evidence discloses commission of an offence in furtherance of the
common intention of them all. (See Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King
Emperor [AIR 1925 PC 1 : 26 Cri LJ 431] , Mannam
Venkatadari v. State of A.P. [(1971) 3 SCC 254 : 1971 SCC (Cri) 479 :
AIR 1971 SC 1467] , Nethala Pothuraju v. State of A.P. [(1992) 1 SCC
49 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 20 : AIR 1991 SC 2214] and Ram Tahal v. State of
U.P. [(1972) 1 SCC 136 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 80 : AIR 1972 SC 254] )"
45. As such in view of re-appreciation of the evidence on record,
the conviction of appellant Santan for the charge under Section 302
read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. is upheld.
46. So far as the conviction of appellant Chhotenath Hembram for
the charge under Section 323 and 325 of the I.P.C. is concerned,
from the testimony of the eye-witness and injured eye-witness it is
well proved that Chhotenath had inflicted injuries simple in nature
with lathi to Sheonarayan and had inflicted grievous injuries to Dhan
Marandi with lathi. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant no.4
Chhotenath for the charge under Sections 323 and 325 of the I.P.C.
does not bear any infirmity and same needs no interference by this
Court.
47. After critical appraisal of the prosecution case and the evidence
available on record, we are of the considered opinion that the
learned Court below has committed no illegality or infirmity in
recording the findings of conviction of accused/appellant no.3 Santan
- 32 -
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.99 of 1994
Hembram and appellant no.4 Chhotenath Hembram. As such there
appears no justification for interference by this Court in the
impugned judgment of conviction. The judgment of conviction dated
3rd February, 1994 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge,
Deoghar convicting the aforesaid accused/appellants is, hereby,
affirmed. Accordingly, this appeal is, hereby, dismissed.
48. So far as the sentence passed against the appellant no.3
Santan is concerned, the learned trial court had sentenced him to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the
I.P.C. without imposing fine; while in view of Section 302 of the
I.P.C. imposing fine along with imprisonment is also mandatory. Such
omission on the part of the learned trial court is curable. Accordingly,
the fine of Rs.10,000/- is also imposed and to this extent the
sentence passed by the learned trial court stands modified.
49. So far as the sentence passed against the appellant no.4
Chhotenath is concerned, the learned trial court had sentenced him
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 325 of
the I.P.C.; while in view of Section 325 of I.P.C. imposing fine along
with imprisonment is also mandatory. Such omission on the part of
the learned trial court is curable. Accordingly, the fine of Rs.1,000/- is
also imposed and to this extent the sentence passed by the learned
trial court stands modified.
50. The appellant no.3/convict, namely, Santan Hembram, who
was granted bail vide order dated 28th March, 1995 during pendency
of the appeal, his bail bonds are cancelled and he would surrender
- 33 -
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.99 of 1994
before the learned trial court, who would send him jail to serve out
the sentence. So far as the appellant no.4 Chhotenath is concerned,
he being traceless his bail bonds were cancelled vide order 2nd April,
2019. The learned trial court is directed to ensure the production of
the appellant no.4 before it and to send him jail to serve out the
sentence passed against him.
51. Let the lower court's record be sent to the court concerned
forthwith along with a copy of this judgment for necessary
compliance.
I agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
(Subhash Chand, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, the 2nd February, 2023. Rohit Pandey/ A.F.R.