Jharkhand High Court
Gurudayal Yadav Son Of Late Manchan ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 September, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
2025:JHHC:29250-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OFJHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 610 of 2002
[Against the judgment of conviction dated 07.09.2002 and order of
sentence dated 09.09.2002 passed by learned Sessions Judge,
Dumka in Sessions Trial No. 70 of 1999]
1. Gurudayal Yadav son of Late Manchan Mahto.
2. Shambhu Kumhar Son of Metu Kumhar,
3. Jhupar Manjhi son of Bajit Mahto.
4. Makalu Yadav son of Hiro Mahto.
All residents of village-Rakodih, P.S.- Saraiyahat, District-
Dumka. .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Respondent
With
Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 674 of 2002
Shankar Mahto, son of Nagdi Mahato, resident of village-
Rakodih, P.S.- Saraiyahat, District- Dumka.
.... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
--------
For the Appellants : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate.
(In both Cases)
For the Respondents : Mr. Azeemuddin, A.P.P.
(In both Cases)
PRESENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
---------
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. On 25.08.2025 Pronounced On:22/09/2025 Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava. J.
1. Heard Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Azeemuddin, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
Page | 1 2025:JHHC:29250-DB
2. The appeal of the appellant no.3 namely Munna Yadav and appellant no.4 Nagadi Mahto of Cr. A (DB)No. 610 of 2002 has been abated vide order dated 30.07.2025, due to their death. Now the appeal is being considered in respect of surviving appellants.
3. Above named appellants along with deceased appellants whose appeal abated have challenged their conviction and sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Trail No. 70/1999 whereby and whereunder all the above named appellants have been held guilty for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
Factual Matrix
4. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that one Upasi Devi (P.W.11) has lodged the F.I.R. stating inter alia that on 06.01.1998 at about 02.30 P.M. her husband Prabhu Dayal was taking lunch in his outdoor house, then all of sudden Ghanshyam Yadav (declared juvenile) started raising a scuffle on account of share in household property, meanwhile Gurudayal Yadav, Shankar Yadav and Shambhu Kunwar armed with danda, tangi approached there, then informant's husband scared and left his lunch and entered into his room and closed the door from inside. It is further alleged that the accused persons started beating the door, thereafter accused persons namely Page | 2 2025:JHHC:29250-DB Munna Yadav, Nagadi Mahato, Jhopar Manjhi and Maklu Yadav also came there and they forcibly broke open the door and take out the informant's husband dragging from the room and brought towards courtyard and thereafter, assaulting him by lathi, danda and tangi carried away to the field of Ganauri Kunwar. It is further alleged that all the accused persons caused severe injuries to the informant's husband on his chest, abdomen and by pressing his throat killed him on the spot. The informant and her son and others attempted to rescue, but in vain.
5. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant (Upasi Devi P.W.11) Saraiyahat P.S. Case No. 02 of 1998 was registered for the offence under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. After completion of investigation, two charge-sheets were submitted against all the above named appellants who claimed to be tried. After conclusion of trial, impugned judgment of conviction and sentence was passed.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that altogether 22 witnesses were examined in this case in order to substantiate the charges leveled against the appellants. All witnesses of facts are family members of the informant. Most of the witnesses of facts including mother of the deceased, sisters of deceased and other relatives who have not been declared hostile, but specifically stated that the deceased was an old person and habitual drunker and Page | 3 2025:JHHC:29250-DB on the date of occurrence, he has taken heavy drink, therefore he could not control himself and fell down on the woods and sustained injuries on his chest and died, but wife and sons of the deceased due to dispute regarding partition of household properties have fabricated a false story regarding assault given to the deceased at his home and thereafter, dragging him towards the field which is the place of occurrence situated at a distance of 50 meters. The manner of occurrence and weapon of assault alleged to be used by the appellants by the so called eye-witnesses does not correspond with the injuries as mentioned in the post- mortem report of the deceased, wherein there is no head injury or any injury caused by sharp cutting weapon and the cause of death is also opined to be fracture of ribs which also may be caused due to fall on hard surface. It is further submitted that the first investigating officer of this case who has conducted considerable part of the investigation including the inspection of place of occurrence has not been examined by the prosecution. Therefore, in this case where as per prosecution story as projected by informant there are two place of occurrence, but none of them has been proved by cogent and reliable evidences. The second investigating officer Sub-Inspector Param Hansraj has been examined as P.W.22, but he has simply recorded statements of some witnesses and admittedly, he has not conducted any Page | 4 2025:JHHC:29250-DB inspection of place of occurrence and the witnesses interrogated by him are hearsay witnesses. Therefore, the defence has also been prejudiced in drawing the attention of ocular witnesses towards material contradictions and discrepancies. It is further submitted that the learned trial court has committed serious error of law in not considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses itself who have given the true account of the occurrence and no reason has been recorded by the learned trial court for disbelieving the evidence of the witnesses who have simply stated that the deceased died due to fall under heavy drunken state. Therefore, the prosecution has itself relied upon two contradictory stories one inculpating the accused and other is absolutely exculpatory nature. Under such circumstance, the legal principle is that where two views are possible one in favour of accused and another inculpating him then, the view favouring the accused must be accepted. In this view of the matter, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellants is not sustainable under law, which is fit to be set aside. Appellants deserve acquittal from the charges leveled against them.
7. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State defending the impugned judgment has submitted that the impartial witnesses although closely related to the deceased, could not be disbelieved as they Page | 5 2025:JHHC:29250-DB were eye-witnesses of the occurrence and in their testimony, nothing has been elicited to discredit their evidence. The learned trial court has very wisely and in threadbare manner apprised and appreciated the overall testimony of witnesses and arrived at right conclusion regarding the guilt of the appellants. There is no merit in this appeal which is fit to be dismissed.
8. We have gone through the record of the case along with impugned judgment in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side.
9. It appears that in order to substantiate charges leveled against the appellants, altogether 22 witnesses were examined.
10. Apart from the testimony of witnesses following documentary evidences has been adduced:-
(i) Exhibit-1:- Post Mortem Report.
(ii) Exhibit-2:- Signature of Indrapal Mahto on inquest
report.
(iii) Exhibit-3:- Signature of Upasi Devi on Fard beyan
(iv) Exhibit-4:- Formal F.I.R.
(v) Exhibit-5:- Fard Beyan. (vi) Exhibit-6:- Endorsement on Fardbeyan. (vii) Exhibit-7:- Inquest Report.
However, the defence has got exhibited certified copy of judgment of criminal appeal No. 204/81, 56/86 of Page | 6 2025:JHHC:29250-DB the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka as Ext-A.
11.P.W.1:- Jagadi Devi is the mother of the deceased. According to her evidence, on the date of the occurrence in the evening she along with her elder son Prabhu Dayal (deceased) had gone to market where Prabhu Dayal consumed huge liquor and at the time of returning, he was coming anyhow falling hither and thither and in that course, he sustained injuries due to fall and died. This witness has not been declared hostile by the prosecution and in her cross-examination also has reiterated the same that her deceased son was a habitual drinker and has been died due to fall in state of intoxication. P.W.2:- Parmeshwari Devi is the sister of the deceased who has also corroborated the testimony of P.W.1 in toto. According to her evidence, on the occasion of 'Paush Sankranti', she had come to her paternal home. Her brother (Prabhu Dayal) under heavy consumption of liquor and intoxication was returning from market and fell down several times and died.
P.W.3:- Sundari Devi is also the sister of the deceased. She has also stated in the same manner as P.W.1 and P.W.2 regarding cause of death of the deceased. She has also been declared hostile by the prosecution.
Page | 7 2025:JHHC:29250-DB P.W.4:- Laxman Kumar is a hearsay witness who heard hulla and went to place of occurrence and saw Prabhu Dayal was lying on road under state of intoxication. Nothing was told to him about the occurrence by any family members of the deceased.
P.W.5 Borhal Mahto is local independent witness has stated that he heard about the death of the deceased due to fall under state of intoxication.
P.W.6 Anirudh Prasad Yadav has been declared hostile by the prosecution. He has also stated that the deceased died due to consumption of liquor and under heavy intoxication, he fell down and sustained injuries.
P.W.7 Dr. C.P. Sinha has conducted autopsy on dead body of the deceased and found following ante mortem injuries:-
i) Diffused swelling over left side of front of chest and diffused swelling over back of chest left side.
ii) On dissection:- There was fracture of 4th and 5th ribs of left side on further dissection plura and lung left found lacerated and collection of blood fluid inside the thoracic cavity.
iii) Cause of death is opined due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of injury mentioned. Death caused by hard and blunt substance.
He has proved the post-mortem report which is marked as exhibit-1.
Page | 8 2025:JHHC:29250-DB P.W.8 Moti Lal Murmu has been declared hostile by the prosecution. He has only heard about the death of the deceased due to heavy intoxication.
P.W.9 Budhdeo Murmu has expressed nothing about the cause of the death of the deceased and declared hostile. P.W. 10 Indrapal Mahato is a witness of inquest report and has proved his signature as Exhibit-2. He has expressed nothing and have no knowledge about the occurrence. P.W.12 Manori Kumar was catching fish at Joria and saw that wife of Prabhu Dayal was going weepingly shouting that her husband has been killed by her dewar and other family members. He has only seen the dead body of the deceased and nothing else.
P.W.13 Mahendra Kumar is also a hearsay witness who went to the place of occurrence after hearing hulla and saw dead body of the deceased. This witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution.
P.W.14 Nunwati Devi has also heard about the murder of the deceased, but had expressed no personal knowledge about the occurrence. She also denied any statement recorded by the police. Therefore, she has also been declared hostile by the prosecution.
P.W.18 Tarini Prasad Yadav has only seen the dead body of the deceased and stated nothing else, hence this witness was also declared hostile by the prosecution and also Page | 9 2025:JHHC:29250-DB denied any statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.
P.W.20 Subhash Chandra Yadav is son of the deceased, who was not present in the house on the date of occurrence, but after getting information from his younger brother Radhey Shyam, he returned then his mother Upasi Devi disclosed him about the occurrence. Therefore, this witness is also a hearsay witness.
P.W.21 Anil Mahato has also been declared hostile by the prosecution.
P.W.22 Param Hasnraj is the second investigating officer who has admitted that he has not visited the place of occurrence rather he has simply recorded the statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. of the witnesses namely Amin Mahato, Kishundev Yadav, Bhim Prasad Yadav, Nunwati Devi, Mandeo Kunwar, Manauri Kunwar, Utilal Murmu, Parmeshwar Manjhi, Budhdeo Murmu, Dayanand Raut, Banarasi Yadav. He also admits that nothing has been seized in this case from the place of occurrence. He also admits that witness Bhim Prasad Yadav (P.W.15) has not stated before him that deceased was dragging out from his house by the accused persons and thereafter, given axe blow from back side by the axe and this witness also not stated before him that Guru Dayal was pressing the neck of the deceased. None of the witnesses stated that after death Page | 10 2025:JHHC:29250-DB of the deceased also a tangi blow from backside was inflicted to deceased.
12.From the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses, the prosecution story as projected in F.I.R. does not find any corroboration rather cause of death of the deceased is also otherwise than expressed by the so called eye-witnesses.
13.The prosecution case rest on the evidence of following witnesses:-
P.W.11 Upasi Devi is the informant and wife of the deceased. According to her evidence, while her husband was taking lunch at about 01.30 - 02.00 PM meanwhile Ghanshyam Yadav and Gurudayal Yadav started scuffling with her husband. Her husband was assaulted by tangi on chest and by stone. Thereafter, her husband was dragged out from the house and his neck was pressed by Guru Dayal. In her cross-examination, she further exaggerates the story and stated that her husband went inside the house, bolted the door from inside then accused persons broke open the door by tangi and also assaulted by tangi on chest to her husband and Shankar assaulted by stone on the chest and again by tangi. She and her son were also threatened to be assaulted. She also admits that her statement was recorded on the next day when the police seized the dead body of her husband.
Page | 11 2025:JHHC:29250-DB P.W.15 Bhim Prasad Yadav was drinking water at a distance of 50 steps at that time he heard hulla and scuffle between deceased and his brother. He has stated like eye- witness of the occurrence that Guru Dayal, Ghanshyam Yadav and Shankar Mahato dragged out the deceased Prabhu Dayal from his house towards courtyard and gave tangi blow from the back side on his neck and Guru Dayal pressed neck of the deceased while Shankar and Ghanshyam Yadav was holding the deceased Prabhu Dayal, due to strangulation he died. His attention has been drawn towards the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., but could not be get explained by the investigating officer due to his non-examination.
P.W. 17 Krishnadeo Mahato is the grand-son of the deceased and has claimed to be present at the place of occurrence at the house of the deceased. According to him, Prabhu Dayal was taking lunch meanwhile all the accused persons came there and started claiming their share in the house. Due to fear Prabhu Dayal entered into his room then, accused persons broke open the door and dragged him out and assaulted him.
P.W. 16 Radheyshyam Yadav and P.W.19 Hari Kishore Yadav are the sons of deceased and they have stated in the same manner as their mother P.W.11 has stated in her deposition.
Page | 12 2025:JHHC:29250-DB
12. The trend of testimony of above witnesses and manner of assault caused to deceased, part of body inflicting injuries to the deceased as well as cause of death due to strangulation appears to be self-contradictory, in view of the fact that post-mortem report of the deceased did not find any mention of such type of injuries and there was only one external injury and another injuries were internal and found 4th and 5th ribs was fractured. There was no ligature mark and it is also opined by the conducting doctor that such type of injury may be caused due to fall on hard surface. Moreover, closed relatives of the deceased including his mother and sisters and other independent witnesses have categorically stated that the deceased was habitual drunker. On the date of occurrence also he had consumed heavy drink is supported by mother and sisters of the deceased. He was abusing to several persons and coming falling hither and tither in the state of intoxication, sustained injuries and died in the way while returning to home. Therefore, the testimony of above eye-witnesses that all incident took place inside the house appears to be highly improbable and doubtful. The place of occurrence is also shown to be different places. The first investigating Officer of the case has not been examined to prove the exact place of occurrence. The claim of the informant and other eye-
witnesses that the deceased entered in the room, bolted the Page | 13 2025:JHHC:29250-DB door from inside which was broke open by the use of axe is also not been proved by any cogent evidence. In this regard the testimony of first investigating officer might have been valuable whether he has found any broken door in the house of the deceased as stated above, but non-availability of such evidence also caused doubt on the prosecution case as projected by the informant and her sons and 'nati' (grandson).
13. We have given anxious consideration to overall aspects of the case particularly the evidence of P.W. No.11, P.W. No.15 and P.W. No.17 who are wife (informant), sons and grandson of the deceased who have projected a story of murder which is absolutely inconsistent with the other material evidence available on record relied upon by the prosecution itself. Therefore, two views are possible in this case. One is in favour of the appellants and another inculpatory not so much reliable. Therefore, we are of the firm view that the learned trial court has committed serious error of law in relying in testimony of P.W. Nos.11, 15 and 17 for posing conviction of the appellants for the offence charged which suffers from material contradictions, discrepancies and not trustworthy. Therefore, impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants are hereby set aside and appeal is Allowed.
Page | 14 2025:JHHC:29250-DB
14. Appellants are on bail, hence, they are discharged from the liability of bail bonds and sureties are also discharged.
15. I.A. if any stands disposed of.
16. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court records be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi Date: 22/09/2025 Amar/- N.A.F.R. Page | 15