Jharkhand High Court
Against The Judgment Of Conviction ... vs State Of Bihar on 12 March, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2026:JHHC:6786-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 35 of 1998(R)
[Against the Judgment of conviction dated 4th February, 1998 and
Order of sentence dated 5th February, 1998 passed by learned IInd
Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti in Sessions Trial No.690
of 1996]
Ganpati Mahto son of Balai Mahto resident of village
Simid P.S. Sonahatu, Distt. Ranchi
... ... Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar ... ... Respondent
with
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 48 of 1998 (R)
-------
1.Basudeo Singh Munda, son of Sri Degambar Singh
Munda;
2.Parshuram Mahto son of Late Jiwan Mahato both
residents of village-Sigid, P.S. Sonahatu, District-Ranchi.
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
.....
For the Appellants : Mr. B.M. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate
[In Cr. A no. 35/98]
Mr. H.K. Mahto, Advocate
Mrs. Ahilya Mahto, Advocate
Mrs. Jyotsna Mahto, Advocate
[In Cr. A. No. 48/98]
For the Respondent : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl. P.P.
.....
C.A.V. on 12/02/2026 Pronounced on 12/03/2026
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.:
1. Since both the appeals arise out of the common Judgment of conviction dated 4th February, 1998 and Order of sentence dated 5th February, 1998 passed by learned IInd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti in -1- 2026:JHHC:6786-DB Sessions Trial No.690 of 1996, as such they have been tagged together and taken up together for analogous hearing and are being disposed of by this common order. Prayer
2. The instant appeals are directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 4th February, 1998 and Order of sentence dated 5th February, 1998 passed by learned IInd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti in Sessions Trial No.690 of 1996, whereby and whereunder all the appellants are convicted under section 302/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Prosecution Case:
3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that a title appeal is alleged to be pending before the High Court, the then Ranchi Bench, Ranchi between the informant and others, and accused Basudeo Singh Munda and others and in that title appeal date was fixed i.e. 23.01.1996 for argument of the parties.
4. Hence the informant Laxman Munda and Bishambhar Singh Munda left their village Sigid P.S. Sonahatu, district Ranchi on their respective bicycle for Jamudag from where both were to catch bus for Ranchi. Bishambhar Singh Munda was ahead of the informant. The informant stated that when Bishambhar Singh Munda reached near a tank situated in village Jamudag -2- 2026:JHHC:6786-DB Tungri, all of a sudden accused Basudeo Singh Munda, Parsuram Mahto and Ganpati Mahto surrounded Bishambher Singh Munda and killed him with sword, farsa and tangi.
5. It is further stated that when the accused saw the informant also, they chased him but the informant fled away making cry and came to his village and informed the villagers and thereafter the informant again went to the place of occurrence with villagers and found his brother (cousin) dead. The informant also says that the accused persons used to give threatening to them that they would kill some-one from the informant side after "Pushparb" (i.e. after 14th Jan.).
6. The informant along with his villagers went to the Sonhatu police station and gave a written complaint to the police which is marked as exhibit-2. Signature of the informant on his written complaint is marked as Exh-1.
7. On the strength of Exhibit-2 Sonahatu P.S. case no. 9/96 dated 23.1.96 u/s 302/34 of the IPC has been registered and thereafter FIR (exhibit 5) has been drawn.
8. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against all the above three named accused persons u/s 302/34 of the IPC. Accordingly, the A.C.J.M. Khunti took cognizance of the offence u/s 302/34 and committed case to the court of sessions.
-3-
2026:JHHC:6786-DB
9. Charge u/s 302/34 of the IPC was framed against all the three above named accused persons on 13.12.96. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
10. According to the accused Ganpati Mahto he was in his 'Banganbera at the time of alleged occurrence and he was arrested from Banganbera itself by the police. On the whole the main defence is that the deceased Bishambher Singh since himself was not a man of good character and once he kidnapped Nuni i.e. Mundain sister of Brajkishore Munda of his village and the deceased was having a large number of enemies and as such he might have been killed by those enemies but the informant falsely implicated the accused Basudeo Singh Munda who is mainly contesting the title appeal before the Hon'ble court. It is also case of the defence that since the other two accused persons namely Parsuram Mahto and Ganpati Mahto are friends of Basudeo Singh Munda, the informant falsely implicated these two persons also.
11. Prosecution in order to prove its case has examined altogether 10 witnesses. They are P.W. 1 Laxman Singh Munda, P.W.2 Mangru Mahto, P.W.3 Hikim Singh Munda, P.W.4 Manohar Singh Munda PW 5 Hirdainath Singh Munda, P.W.6 Jeevan Mahto, PW 7 Raghunath Mahto, PW 8 Rajendra Singh Munda, PW 9 Bidhundeo Singh and PW -4- 2026:JHHC:6786-DB 10 Dr. Saroj Kumar. Out of these, P.W.1 is the informant and sole eye witness of this case. P.W.2 to P.W.8 are the villagers of the informant who were told about the occurrence by P.W.1 and thereafter these witnesses rushed to the place of occurrence and allegedly found the dead body of Bishambher Singh Munda on the place of occurrence. P.W.9 is the investigating officer of this case. P. W. 10 is the medical officer who held post mortem on the dead body of Bishambher Singh Munda on 24.1.96 at 12 noon in R.M.C.H. Ranchi.
12. The defence has examined two witnesses namely D.W.1 Rameshwar Mahto and D.W.2 Chhotu Singh Munda. D.W.2 has admitted that he is uncle of the accused Basudeo Singh Munda.
13. The learned trial court, on appreciation of the evidences produced on behalf of the prosecution and defence, found the allegation proved against the appellants and accordingly, passed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence as referred herein above, which is under challenge in the instant appeal. Argument on behalf of appellants
14. Learned counsel for the appellants has taken the following grounds, in assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as under: - -5-
2026:JHHC:6786-DB I. The prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charge said to be proved, beyond all reasonable doubt, in establishing the charge said to be committed by the appellants under Section 302/34 of the IPC.
II. The learned trial court has failed to appreciate that only eye witness to the occurrence, P.W. 1 [informant], namely, Laxman Singh Munda is highly interested witness and his version has not been corroborated by any independent witness. On the basis of uncorroborated testimony of sole witness, who is admittedly highly interested witness coupled with a background of long-standing litigation owing to a land dispute, which fact has been admitted by almost prosecution witness, as such their testimony ought to have been rejected.
III. Further the learned trial court has committed grave error in law by accepting the evidence of P.W. 2 to P.W. 8 by not applying the rule of hearsay. IV. The prosecution has not adduced any evidence to prove that on 23.01.1996 there was any date at Ranchi Civil Court relating to Civil Suit pending between the informant and the appellant party. The prosecution has also not adduced any independent witness to depose before the court that actually the -6- 2026:JHHC:6786-DB informant and the deceased had left the village in the early hours of date of occurrence i.e., 23.01.1996 on two bi-cycles for Ranchi.
V. Furthermore, the prosecution has also not been able to prove the motive of murder by adducing conclusive evidence as there is nothing to show on record that actually there was civil litigation between the parties; and there is no evidence to show that prior to occurrence the prime accused of the case namely Basudeo Singh Munda was heard giving threats in the village to do away with life of Bishan Singh Munda before Makar festival.
VI. The learned trial court has also failed to appreciate that the prosecution has adduced no evidence during the trial to show that the present appellant was having nexus and friendship with Basudeo Singh Munda, that he could participate in the murder for the sake of friendship.
VII. The prosecution has also not been able to produce any murder weapon used in the said murder, alleged to have been used by the appellant and two others in commission of murder.
VIII. Submission has been made that the prosecution has failed to produce the bi-cycle or blood stain clothes as material exhibits during the -7- 2026:JHHC:6786-DB trial which according to prosecution story belong to the deceased.
IX. It has been submitted that soon after the occurrence, the appellant was arrested but neither any blood stain on his cloth nor the weapon allegedly used for commission of crime was recovered from his possession.
X. Submission has been made that the
trustworthy witness the village chowkidar and
independent witness, namely, Sridhar Mahto, to whom, the P.W. 1 had narrated the occurrence for the first time has not been examined. Moreover, P.W.2, in his evidence has stated that P.W. 1 had only told him about the incidence and not the person who is responsible for such incidence, which goes to show that the prosecution story has been improved later.
XI. Further, it is P.W. 2, 3, 4 and 5, who had been deposing in favour of P.W. 1 on several previous occasions in court favouring the informant, as such they are interested witness and not the independent witness; but this aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by learned trial court while passing the impugned order.
-8-
2026:JHHC:6786-DB XII. Further submission has been made that the deceased-Bisheshwar Singh Munda has terror in the area and for his illegal activities he had invited many enemies, who could have murdered him but that aspect of the matter has also not been considered by learned trial Court.
XIII. It has been submitted that time of occurrence is said to be 5.30 a.m. in the month of January, in which month, at the relevant time, the visibility is not seen to be clearer so as to give the description of things in clarity but the informant has reported the things in clarity, which casts doubt upon the prosecution story and identification in such situation is doubtful.
XIV. Learned senior counsel for the appellants has much emphasized that for convicting a person it is not worth to consider the testimony of the witness, which are partly reliable and reference in this regard has been made to the judgment rendered in the case of Nand Lal & Ors Vs. The State of Chhatisgarh (2023) 10 SCC 740.
XV. In their defense, the appellants have produced two witnesses but their version has not been taken into consideration without any reason for discarding such testimony.
-9-
2026:JHHC:6786-DB XVI. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants based upon the aforesaid grounds has submitted that the conviction under section 302 IPC is not established against the appellants and hence, the impugned judgment is fit to be quashed and set aside.
Argument on behalf of the State
15. While on the other hand, Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State, defending the impugned judgment of conviction, has raised the following arguments in response to the grounds taken by learned counsel for the appellants, as referred hereinabove: -
I. There is no error in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence since culpable homicide is there and admittedly the sole eyewitness has deposed about the assault given by appellants, which ultimately resulted into death of the deceased, which finds support from the medical evidence. II. Further submission has been made that from the testimony of the informant PW-1, who is the eye witness of the case, time place and manner of occurrence is established which is further corroborated by recovery of weapon used by the appellants in the occurrence.
-10-
2026:JHHC:6786-DB III. Submission has been made that it is well proved by the prosecution in support of medical evidence that Bishambher Singh Munda has been killed by lethal weapons. It is P.W. 1- Laxman Singh Munda who has seen the murder of Bishambher Singh Minda, who is the informant.
IV. It has been submitted that P.W. 1 has deposed that he along with the Deceased-Bishambher Singh Munda proceeded for Ranchi to participate in the proceeding of civil appeal pending before the High Court. They were on separate bi-cycle to catch bus in village Jamundag and when P.W.1 reached near 'bar tree' the accused Basudeo Singh Munda, Parsuram Mahto and Ganpati Mahto started assaulting Bishambher Singh Munda with sword and farsa. The accused persons chased him also, but P.W.1 hurriedly returned back on his cycle to his village making cry and told the villagers about the occurrence. When P.W. 1 along with others returned to the place of occurrence, they found the dead body of the deceased- Bishambher Singh Munda having injuries on his head, temple and arm. All the witnesses have also supported the version of the eye witness, as such the case of the prosecution has fully been proved.-11-
2026:JHHC:6786-DB V. Further submission has been made that it is the quality of the testimony and not the quantity which matters and in the case at hand, the sole eye witness, P.W. 1, has fully supported the prosecution version, which has been corroborated by the medical evidence.
VI. Learned counsel appearing for the State based upon the aforesaid premise has submitted that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any error hence the instant appeal is fit to be dismissed. Analysis
16. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment as also gone through the testimonies of the witnesses as available in the Trial Court.
17. This Court, before appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the parties as also the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment, deems it fit and proper to refer the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
Testimony of witnesses:
18. P.W.1- Laxman Singh Munda, who is the sole eye witness to the occurrence as also the informant of the case, has deposed that it was Tuesday and date was -12- 2026:JHHC:6786-DB 23.1.1996 at 5.30 a.m. when he proceeded for Ranchi as argument was to be taken place in a case at Ranchi. He was to catch bus in village Jamundag. His cousin Bishambher Singh Munda was also going with him but on a separate bicycle. He further deposed that he was going behind Bishambher Singh Munda [deceased]. When P.W.- 1 reached near 'bar tree' the accused Basudeo Singh Munda, Parsuram Manto and Ganpati Mahto started assaulting Bishambher Singh Munda with sword and farsa. When the appellants chased him, P.W.-1 hurriedly returned back on his cycle to his village making cry and he told the villagers about the occurrence. P.W.-1 named those villagers as P.W.-5 Hirdainath; P.W.-.2 Mangru Mahto, P.W.-3; Hikim Singh Munda; P.W.-4 Manohar Singh and others. P.W.-1 further deposed that he along with these villagers went to the place of occurrence and found his cousin Bishambher Singh Munda dead there. The dead body was having injuries on his head, temple and arm, blood also fell on the place of occurrence and cycle of the deceased was there.
19. P.W.-1 further deposed that he thereafter sent message to the Chowkidar through Siridhar Mahto, who though has not been examined, and then he went to the police station and found Assistant sub-Inspector of police there and submitted a written complaint to the police. He -13- 2026:JHHC:6786-DB got his report written by P.W.-2-Mangru Mahto on his dictation. P.W.-1 has proved his signature on his report which has been marked as Exhibit-1. The written report has also been proved and marked as Exhibit-2. P.W.-1 further deposed that the police took his statement and then came to the place of occurrence and examined the dead body and seized the dead body and prepared seizure list. He further says that the police seized blood stain soil from the place of occurrence also and prepared papers and then the police sent the dead body to Ranchi for post mortem.
20. P.W.-1 has further deposed that accused Basudeo Singh Munda is his agnate and is his nephew. P.W.-1 also said that a partition suit was filed in Khunti Court which was decreed in his favour and thereafter the accused Basudeo Singh Munda preferred an appeal before the High Court in which argument was to be taken. He also admitted that the deceased Bishambher Singh had filed a theft case for committing theft of lac against the accused Basudeo Singh Munda. P.W. 1 admitted that accused Parsuram Mahto and Ganpati Mahto as friends of accused Basudeo Singh Munda.
21. P.W.-1 has been cross-examined by the defence at length. During cross-examination at para 8, he has stated that accused Parsuram Mahto and accused Ganpati -14- 2026:JHHC:6786-DB Mahto used to share happiness and sorrow with the accused Basudeo Singh Munda. P.W.-1 further admitted in para 9 that he had filed a criminal case against accused Basudeo Singh Munda about 11 years back but in that criminal case accused Parsuram and Ganpati were not accused persons. P.W.-1 further admitted that after two years of that criminal case he again filed a criminal case against Basudeo Singh Munda for assault. P.W.-1 further admitted that about 4 years ago he also filed a criminal case for committing theft of lac against accused Basudeo Singh Munda. He admitted that during those days accused Basudeo Singh Munda was not having friendship with accused Parsuram Mahto and accused Ganpati Mahto. P.W.-1 made it clear in para 9 itself that friendship between the accused Basudeo Singh Munda and rest two accused persons namely Parsuram and Ganpati Mahto has developed recently only for the last 2- 3 years. P.W.-1 also admitted that he has deposed against the accused Basudeo Singh Munda very recently in the Court of judicial magistrate at Khunti. P.W.-1 also admitted in para 10 that litigation between the informant and his family members and the accused Basudeo Singh Munda and others is since the year 1985-86. At paragraph 11 of the cross-examination, genealogy of the family of the informant. P.W.-1 has further stated that the -15- 2026:JHHC:6786-DB accused Basudeo Singh Munda used to give them threatening that he would kill anyone from his side after 'push-parb' [14th January Festival]. On further cross examination P.W.-1 has stated in the same para that the accused Basudeo Singh Munda used to take the name of him (P.W.1 and the deceased Bishambher Singh Munda as persons to be killed]. P.W.-1 made it clear that the accused Basudeo Singh Munda did not give threatening to them face to face rather used to utter from his own house but to their hearing. P.W.-1 also admitted that he did not take it seriously and did not inform the police about the threatening. P.W.-1 has stated in para 12 that he and the deceased were residing separately in their own houses. Bishambher Singh Munda (the deceased) left his house prior to him. When Bishamher Singh Munda went ahead about 10-15 yards, he (P.W.1) came out of his house. P.W.-1 asserted that at that time there was some sufficient illumination at that time for recognizing things and persons. In paragraph 13, P.W.-1 has stated that at the time of occurrence Bishambher Singh Munda was at about 40-50 yards ahead of him. He also said in this para that Basudeo Singh Munda and accused Ganpati Mahto restrained the victim first of all from front side. P.W.-1 further deposed that accused Basudeo Singh Munda was carrying a tangi, accused Ganpati was carrying a farsa -16- 2026:JHHC:6786-DB and accused Parsuram Mahto was carrying a sword in their respective hands. P.W.-1 admitted in para 16 that he could not say the number of blows given by the accused persons with their respective arms on the deceased but P.W.-1 stated in clear words that first of all accused Parsuram Mahto gave sword blow on the head of Bishambher Singh Munda and thereafter accused Ganpati Mahto started assaulting him. P.W.-1 admitted in para 22 that these witnesses namely P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 have also deposed in his favour in other cases.
22. The defence has suggested in para 22 to P.W.1 that one Dalel Mahto actually informed him that dead body of Bishambher Singh Munda was lying and thereafter he (P.W.1) went to the place of occurrence. The suggestion has also been given to P.W.1 that he did not see the murder of Bishambhar Singh Munda with his own eyes. But P.W.-1 denied both suggestions given by the learned defence counsel. Then the learned defence counsel suggested to P.W.-1 that the deceased once had kidnapped a girl but P.W.-1 stated that he was not knowing about any kidnapping. P.W.-1 also denied that he has falsely implicated the accused persons out of enmity.
23. P.W.2 Mangru Mahto is co-villagers of the informant and the accused persons. He says that when he -17- 2026:JHHC:6786-DB was in his house on 23.01.1996, he heard cry at 6.30 a.m. coming from the family of P.W.1, then this witness went there and then P.W.1 told him that his brother Bishambher Singh Mahto was killed. P.W.2 says that thereafter P.W.1 started crying. P.W.2 has further deposed that P.W. 1, Laxman Singh Munda did not name the killers of Bishamber Singh Munda before him. P.W.2 then says that P. W.1 told him that Bishambher Singh Munda was killed in the way in village Jamundag Tongri. P.W.2 then says that thereafter he and other witnesses rushed to the P.O. and found the dead body of Bishamber Singh Munda having injuries on temple, head and arms. P.W.2 in para 2 specifically stated that nobody told to him the names of killers of Bishambher Singh Munda even at the place of occurrence. However, P.W.2 admits that he wrote exhibit 2 at the dictation of P.W.1. P.W.2 has also proved the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-3. He has stated during cross-examination that the place of occurrence was at about 3 KM from his village.
24. P.W.3 Hikim Singh Munda is also co-villager; he has fully corroborated the version of P.W. 1. He said that it was 23.1.96 and Tuesday when he was in his house. P.W.1 came to the village crying. P.W.3 also says that P.W.1 told him that accused Parsuram Mahto, Basudeo Singh Munda and Ganpati Mahto killed his brother -18- 2026:JHHC:6786-DB Bishambher Singh Munda with tangi, sword and farsa. P.W.3 then says that they thereafter rushed to the P.O. and found the dead body of Bishambher Singh Munda having injuries on his head, temple and arms. He also deposed that he found his bicycle lying there. He also said that he also saw his boot there. He also found blood on the place of occurrence. He also found wounds of the deceased oozing out. He then went to the police station also with informant and others. He also then says that police came and seized blood stained soil from the place of occurrence and prepare papers. He has proved his signature on the seizure list as exhibit 1/1. He has also proved the seizure list as exhibit 4. He further deposed that the deceased, the accused persons, the informant, all are of the same village. He further admits that the deceased and the accused Basudeo Singh Munda and the informant are of same family (khandan) and they have been litigating for lands. He also admits that a theft case is also pending between the parties since before 2-3 months of this murder. He also says that there is long standing enmity between them. P.W. 3 has identified all the accused persons in the dock.
25. During cross-examination P.W. 3 has made it clear in para 5 that when P.W.1 was running towards his house and when he was passing in front of his house on his bi- -19-
2026:JHHC:6786-DB cycle making cry then he went to him and was told about the occurrence by P.W.1. P.W.3 in para 7 has admitted that there was a 'bar-tree', near the place of occurrence. P.W.3 said in para 3 that there were four injuries on the dead-body. He has admitted in para 11 that P.W.1 is his uncle by the village relation. He has stated in para 10 that he reached on the P.O.at about 9 a.m.
26. P.W.4 Manohar Singh Munda has admitted in para 3 that the deceased was his own uncle. He has also admitted that he is a party in the litigation for land between the parties. Thus P.W. 4 is highly interested witness of the prosecution. He has fully corroborated version of P.W.1 except about the weapon. He has stated in para 1 itself that P.W.1 did not tell him the weapon used by the accused persons for killing Bishambher Singh Munda. However, P.W.4 has admitted that he was told by p.w.1 that the murder took place in village Jamudag Tongri at about 50 yards from the tank. P.W.4 has admitted in para 2 that there was a long-standing enmity between the parties.
27. P.W.5 Hirdai Nath Singh Munda is also co-villager of the parties. He has stated that when he was in his house on 23.1.1996, he woke up at 5.30 a.m. and thereafter went to his khalihan for crushing crops. P.W. 5 further stated that when he was distributing crops in his -20- 2026:JHHC:6786-DB khalihan, P.W. 1 came weeping and told him that his brother Bishambher Singh Munda was killed in village Jamudag Tongri at about 50 yards from the tank by Parusaram Mahto, Basudeo Singh Munda and Ganpati Mahto with sword and farsa. P.W.5 has further corroborated version of P.W.1 that P.W.1 told him that these accused persons first of all surrounded the deceased and then killed. P.W. 5 has further deposed that he went to the Place of occurrence and found the dead body of Bishambher Singh Munda having injuries on temple, neck, arms and other places. P.W.5 stated in para 2 that the murder was done on account of lands dispute. P.W.5 has identified all the three accused persons in the dock.
28. It is very important to mention here that the defence tried to prove his version through mouth of this witness by putting some questions about kidnapping of Nuni Mundain. P. W.5 admitted that he was knowing Rajendra Singh Munda and Braj-Kishore Singh Munda. P. W.5 then stated that Brajkishore Singh Munda was no more in the world and he was his uncle in agnate. P.W.5 also admitted that Nuni Mundain was his sister and she was married to a person of village Beluwadih. P. W.5 then says that Nuni was also no more in the world. P.W.5 then stated that Nuni Mundain died 6-7 years back. Suggestion -21- 2026:JHHC:6786-DB was given to P.W.5 that the deceased Bishambher Singh Munda has kidnapped Nani Mundain. But P.W.5 denied this allegation made by the defence. The defence then suggested that till Brajkishore Singh Munda was alive, the deceased was not daring to enter into his village. But this suggestion was also denied by P.W.5. P.W. 5 then says, that they went to the place of occurrence. He also admitted in para 11 that the place of occurrence was at about 3-3 K.M from his khalihan. P. W.5 then admitted that there was long standing litigation between the informant and the accused Basudeo Singh Munda. P.W.5 also admitted in para 11 that there were 3-4 more criminal cases between the informant and the accused Basudeo Singh Munda. P.W.5 further asserted that he never deposed except this case for the information in any case.
29. P.W.6 Jeevan Mahto is also co-villager of the parties. According to him he was going to his field on 23.1.1996 in the morning, P.W.1 told him that Bishambher Singh Minda was done to death in village Jamudag Tongri near the tank by Basûdeo Singh Munda, Parsuram Mahto and Ganpati Mahto with sword and farsa when both (p.w.1 and the deceased) were going on bi-cycle. P. W.6 then says that he thereafter went to the place of occurrence and found the dead body of Bishambher Singh Munda having -22- 2026:JHHC:6786-DB injuries on temple, neck and other places. The learned defence counsel attacked on the testimony of this witness by drawing attention of the court towards para 3. P. W.6 has stated that he could not say who killed Bishambher Singh Munda.
30. P.W. 7 has been declared tendered but this witness in his cross-examination had stated that on the day of alleged occurrence he had not seen the Laxman Munda (P.W.1) and he had further stated that at that time Ganpati Mahto was ploughing his field at Bangangora. He had further stated he had seen Ganpati Mahto was ploughing the filed at 10 to 11 A.M.
31. P.W. 8-Rajendra Singh Munda has admitted in para 7 that the deceased was his uncle. He has also admitted in para 11 that they are litigating against the accused Basudeo Singh Munda for the last 15-20 years for partition. He has also admitted in para 11 that he has deposed against the accused in 2-3 more cases. He has also admitted in para 6 that accused Parsuram Mahto filed a theft case for paddy crops cutting bearing no. G.R.522/95.
32. P.W. 8 admitted in para 6 that in the criminal case against accused Basudeo Singh Munda was a witness against him and that case is pending. P. W.8 says that P.W.1 Laxman Singh Munda told him in the village on -23- 2026:JHHC:6786-DB 23.1.96 that when he and Bishambher Singh Munda were going on bi-cycle separately for Ranchi, Basudeo Singh Munda, Parsuram Mahto and Ganpati Mahto surrounded Bishambher Singh Munda and killed him with sword, tangi and farsa. P.W.8 then says that thereafter they rushed to the place of occurrence and found the dead body of Bishambher Singh Munda having injuries on temple, neck, head and others. He has identified all the accused persons in the dock. P.W.8 during cross- examination in para 8 has stated that the he was told by P.W.1 about the occurrence in front of the house of P.W.5 Hirdai Nath Singh Munda.
33. P.W.9 Bishundeo Singh is the investigating officer of this case. He says that on 23.1.96 when he was posted as Assistant sub-inspector of police in Sonahatu police station at 10.30 a.m., the informant Laxman Singh Munda along with Hirdai Nath Singh Minda, Mangru Mahto and others came to the police station and submitted a written complaint to him and the then officer- in-charge of the police station was absent. P.W.9 further stated that he registered the case and took up the investigation.
34. According to P.W.9, he inspected the place of occurrence and prepared seizure list(exhibit-4) and then seized the dead body and prepared inquest report (exhibit- -24-
2026:JHHC:6786-DB
3) and obtained signature of P.W.2 Mangru Mahto and P.W.3 Hikim Singh Munda on that seizure list. He further deposed that the place of occurrence is situated in village Jamudag boarder bear Tongri hill at about 100 years from Jamudag-Adrahmatu Kachi road at about 50 yards from the tank. During cross-examination P.W.9 admitted in para 8 that the road near the place of occurrence is not straight rather curved. P.W.9 also admitted in para 9 that he found a bicycle there near the place of occurrence but did not seize that bicycle. He also admitted that he did not seize the cloths found on the dead body. P.W.9 stated that the informant Laxman Singh Munda told him that his cousin Bishambher Singh Munda was killed by the accused Basudeo Singh Munda, Parsuram Mahto and Ganpati Mahto with sword, tangi and farsa in the morning near the Tungri.
35. P.W.10 Dr. Saroj Kumar, who was posted in the Department of Forensic Science in Rajendra Medical College and Hospital, Ranchi, has conducted post mortem of the deceased. He said that on 24.1.96 he conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Bishambher Singh Munda son of Laxman Narayan Singh Munda of village Sigid PS Sonahatu, distt. Ranchi a male aged about 55 years, brought and identified by chowkidar Hari Ram Mahto. He found following injuries:- -25-
2026:JHHC:6786-DB ABRASION
1) 5 cm x 1 cm on left arm lateral side upper part;
11) 11 cm x 1 cm on the left scapular region;
111) 2 cm x 1 cm x soft tissues on left chest back lower part;
iv) 4 cm x 1 cm x soft tissues on left forearm lower part medial side.
v) 11 cm x 3 cm x bone deep on left cheeck and adjoining left mastoid region and left occipital region an of xhand head cutting the underlying bone.
vi) 15 cm x 4 cm xbone deep on left cheek and adjoining left lateral neck upper part cutting the underlying bone, vill 11 cm x 3 cm x bone deep left chin and adjoining left lateral neck cutting the left side of mandible bone and 2nd cervical vertebra including soft tissues and blood vessels.
viii) 8 cm x 181/2 cm x bone deep left lateral neck middle part cutting the soft tissues blood vessels completely and 4th certical vertebra partially.
ix) 16 cm x 2cm x bone deep on left parito-occipital region head situated antero-posteriorly cutting the underlying bone and brain matter. There was presece of blood and blood clot in the cranial cavity.
P.W. 10 gave his opinion that all the above injuries were ante-mortem and abrasions were caused by hard and blunt substance, and incised wounds were caused by -26- 2026:JHHC:6786-DB heavy sharp cutting weapon. P.W.10 admitted that sword and farsa may cause such incised injuries. He further said that the death was due to head injury associated with shock and haemorrage. He gave his opinion that time since death was 18 to 36 hours. He further opined that the last incised injuries i.e. injury no. ix was sufficient alone to cause death. He has proved the post mortem report which has been marked as exhibit 6.
36. On behalf of the defence two witnesses, namely, D.W. 1-Ramesh Mahto and D.W.2-Chhotu Singh Munda, have been examined. D.W.1 stated mainly about old litigation between the parties. This enmity is admitted by the prosecution also. D.W.1 further stated that the deceased had kidnapped Minibala of his village. The defence by this evidence tried to show that the deceased was of bad character and he might have been killed due to said bad behaviour.
37. D.W.2 stated in para 2 about genealogy of the family of the parties simply.
38. Now this Court is adverting to the contention of learned counsels for the appellants.
39. Learned senior counsel for the appellants has much emphasized that for convicting a person it is not worth to consider the testimony of the witness, which are partly reliable and in the instant case the testimony of P.W.1 -27- 2026:JHHC:6786-DB who claimed himself solitary eye-witness of the alleged occurrence has not been corroborated absolutely by the other prosecution witnesses and if testimony of P.W.2 will be taken in to consideration it would be evident that testimony of P.W.1 is not trustworthy and reliable on vital point therefore testimony of P.W.1 cannot treated as fully reliable and in order to substantiate this limb of argument the learned senior Counsel has put reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Nand Lal & Ors Vs. The State of Chhatisgarh (supra).
40. Learned senior counsel for the appellants has also laid much emphasis upon the fact that most of the witnesses are the interested witnesses and there is long standing dispute between the appellant namely Basudeo Singh Munda and the informant P.W.1, therefore, the probability of the false implications against the appellants by the informant cannot be denied completely.
41. It has further been contended that only eye witness to the occurrence, P.W. 1 [informant], namely, Laxman Singh Munda is highly interested witness and his version has not been corroborated by any independent witness. On the basis of uncorroborated testimony of sole witness, the case of the prosecution has no leg to stand and moreover, P.W.2, in his evidence has stated that P.W. 1 had only told him about the incidence and not the person -28- 2026:JHHC:6786-DB who is responsible for such incidence, which goes to show that the prosecution story has been improved later.
42. In the backdrop of the aforesaid contentions of the learned senior counsel for the appellant, this Court in the instant case is to consider following issues: -
(i) Whether the material as has come in course of trial is sufficient to attract the offence committed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code?
(ii) Whether the only sole testimony of an eyewitness is sufficient enough to prove the alleged charges against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt.
(iii) Whether the appellants are entitled for acquittal in absence of other cogent evidences?
43. Since all the aforesaid issues are inextricably interlinked, the same are being decided hereinbelow by considering them together.
44. This Court, in order to appreciate the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants with respect to the culpability of the appellants, of commission of offence under Section 302 the Indian Penal Code vis-à-vis the evidences adduced on behalf of the parties, deems it fit and proper to refer certain judicial pronouncements in context of contention raised by the appellants. -29-
2026:JHHC:6786-DB
45. The learned senior counsel has contended that the learned trial court even in absence of corroboration of the testimony of P.W.1 who is self-proclaimed sole eyewitness has convicted the appellants which is bad in eyes of law.
46. In the aforesaid context this court thinks fit to discuss the evidentiary value of the sole eyewitness. 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.
47. 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-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.
48. 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 -30- 2026:JHHC:6786-DB 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."
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. -31-
2026:JHHC:6786-DB
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."
49. 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."
50. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kalu @ Amit vs. State of Haryana, (2012) 8 SCC 34 held as under:-
"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."
51. 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 -32- 2026:JHHC:6786-DB 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."
52. It is thus evident from the aforesaid settled position of law that the judgment of conviction can be passed on the basis of the testimony of sole eyewitness but if there are doubts about the testimony of the such sole eyewitness, the courts will insist on corroboration and the test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, or otherwise.
53. At this juncture this Court thinks fit to revisit the testimony of the witnesses particularly the sole eyewitness P.W.1, and also delved in to factual aspects of the instant case in the backdrop of aforesaid legal proposition.
54. The factual aspect, involved in the present case, as per the case made out by the informant, is that one title appeal was alleged to be pending before the High Court, the then Ranchi Bench, Ranchi and in that title appeal 23.01.1996 was the date fixed for argument of the parties. Hence the informant Laxman Munda and Bishambhar Singh Munda (deceased) left their village Sigid P.S. Sonahatu, district Ranchi on their respective bicycle for Jamudag from where both were to catch bus for Ranchi. Bishambhar Singh Munda was ahead of the informant. -33-
2026:JHHC:6786-DB
55. The informant made out a case that when Bishambhar Singh Munda reached near a tank situated in village Jamudag Tungri, all of a sudden accused Basudeo Singh Munda. Parsuram Mahto and Ganpati Mahto surrounded Bishambher Singh Munda and killed him with sword, farsa and tangi.
56. It has further been deposed by the P.W.1 that when the accused saw the informant also, they chased him but the informant fled away making cry and came to his village and informed the villagers and thereafter the informant again went to the place of occurrence with villagers and found his brother (cousin) dead. The informant also stated that the accused persons used to give threatening to them that they would kill some-one from the informant side after "Pushparb" (i.e. after 14th Jan.).
57. The informant along with his villagers went to the Sonhatu police station and gave a written complaint to the police which is marked as exhibit-2. Signature of the informant on his written complaint is marked as Exhibit-
1. On the strength of Exhibit-2 Sonahatu P.S. case no. 9/96 dated 23.1.96 u/s 302/34 of the IPC has been registered and thereafter FIR (exhibit 5) has been drawn. -34-
2026:JHHC:6786-DB
58. The evidence was led on behalf of both the parties. Out of ten witnesses produced on behalf of prosecution, P.W. 1 is the informant and the sole eye witness to the case. P.W. 2 to P.W. 6 and P.W.8 are the villagers of the informant who were told about the occurrence by the informant [P.W. 1] and thereafter these witnesses rushed to the place of occurrence and allegedly found the dead body of Bishambher Singh Munda on the place of occurrence. Therefore, from the testimony of P.W. 2 to 6 and P.W.8, this Court has to see whether the version of the informant [P.W. 1] has been corroborated by these witnesses or not.
59. These witnesses are the persons who were allegedly told about the murder and names of the murderers by the informant [P.W. 1]. Hence, they are the hearsay witnesses. But their evidence for corroboration of testimony of P.W. 1 is essential to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, this Court has again delved into the testimony of the witnesses as reflected in the preceding paragraphs.
60. From the testimony of P.W. 2, it is apparent that this witness in unequivocal term had deposed that P.W.1- Laxman Singh Munda [informant] did not name the killers of Bishamber Singh Munda before him. P.W.2 further clarified that P.W.1 told him that Bishambher Singh -35- 2026:JHHC:6786-DB Munda was killed in the way in village Jamundag Tongri. Thereafter, he [P.W.2] and other witnesses rushed to the place of occurrence and found the dead body of Bishamber Singh Munda having injuries on temple, head and arms. P.W.2 at Para 2 specifically stated that nobody told him the names of killers of Bishambher Singh Munda even at the place of occurrence.
61. Thus, from the testimony of P.W. 2, it can safely be concluded that the testimony of P.W. 2 does not substantiate the version of the informant-P.W. 1. Further it is very peculiar state that if name of accused persons was known to the informant, then why he did not disclose the name of the accused to P.W.2 and further the non- disclosing of the name of the accused in first instance before the P.W.2 is against the natural conduct of the person.
62. Further, P.W.4 Manohar Singh Munda has stated in para 1 itself that P.W.1(sole eyewitness) did not tell him the weapon used by the accused persons for killing Bishambher Singh Munda.
63. Thus, from the testimony of P.W. 2 and P.W.4 it is evident that the P.W.1 while disclosing the alleged occurrence had not disclosed the name of assailants to the P.W.2 which amount to vital omission and the natural -36- 2026:JHHC:6786-DB conduct of the person. Further P.W.4 Manohar Singh Munda had deposed that the P.W.1 had not disclosed the weapon used in the alleged crime, thus from the aforesaid it may be inferred that the testimony of the P.W.1 is not fully trustworthy and therefore the evidence placed by the P.W.1 cannot be taken as gospel truth in context of the alleged occurrence.
64. Further it is evident from testimony of P.W.7 who is tendered witness that on the alleged day of occurrence on the day of alleged occurrence he had not seen the Laxman Munda (P.W.1) and he had further stated that at that time Ganpati Mahto was ploughing his field at Bangangora. He had further stated that he had seen Ganpati Mahto was ploughing the filed at 10 to 11 A.M.
65. The issue of reliability of the tender witness fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sukhwant Singh Vrs. State of Punjab, reported in (1995) 3 SCC 367, wherein while dealing with the issue of reliability of the tender witness, it has been held at paragraph-20 as under:-
"20. The Division Bench, therefore, was considering a peculiar fact situation in that case and even in that context it was observed that the witness "could have been produced for cross-examination by the accused" and that "the accused were entitled to test his evidence". The observations of the Division Bench in Jaggo case [(1971) 2 SCC 42 : 1971 SCC -37- 2026:JHHC:6786-DB (Cri) 401 : AIR 1971 SC 1586] , therefore, do not support the view that a material witness can be 'tendered' for cross-
examination only. The observations from a judgment of this Court cannot be read in isolation and divorced from the context in which the same were made and it is improper for any court to take out a sentence from the judgment of this Court, divorced from the context in which it was given, and treat such an isolated sentence as the complete enunciation of law by this Court. The judgment in Jaggo case [(1971) 2 SCC 42 : 1971 SCC (Cri) 401 : AIR 1971 SC 1586] has in our opinion been mis-appreciated and that judgment cannot be interpreted as a sanction from the Supreme Court to the prosecution to adopt the practice of tendering a witness for cross- examination only, without there being any examination-in-chief, in relation to which the witness has to be cross-examined. All that the judgment in Jaggo case [(1971) 2 SCC 42 : 1971 SCC (Cri) 401 : AIR 1971 SC 1586] emphasises is that the mere ipse dixit of the prosecutor that a particular witness has been won over is not conclusive of that allegation and the Court should not accept the same mechanically and relieve the prosecutor of his obligation to examine such a witness. It was for this reason suggested by the Bench that where the prosecution makes such an allegation, it must keep the witness in attendance and produce him to enable the defence to cross- examine such a witness to test his evidence as well as the allegations of the prosecution and bring out the truth on the record. After the coming into force of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which replaced the Code of 1898, recording of evidence in commitment proceedings has been totally dispensed with and Section 288 of that Code has been omitted. Consequently, the course suggested by some of the High Courts in the earlier quoted judgments regarding tendering of a witness for cross- examination who had been examined in the committal court, is also no more relevant or available. The Jaggo case [(1971) 2 SCC 42 : 1971 SCC (Cri) 401 : AIR 1971 SC 1586] , which was decided when the Code of 1898 was operating in the field could not, therefore, be pressed -38- 2026:JHHC:6786-DB into service by the trial court while dealing with the instant case tried according to the Code of 1973. Thus considered, it is obvious that the trial court, wrongly permitted the prosecution to tender PW 4 and PW 5 for cross-examination only. Both PW 4 and PW 5 were, according to the prosecution case itself, eyewitnesses of the occurrence and had removed the deceased to the hospital. Their evidence was, of a material nature which was necessary for the unfolding of the prosecution story. The effect of their being tendered only for cross-examination amounts to the failure of the prosecution to examine them at the trial. Their non-examination, in our opinion, seriously affects the credibility of the prosecution case and detracts materially from its reliability."
66. The issue of reliability of the testimony of tender witness fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tej Prakash Vrs. State of Haryana, reported in (1996) 7 SCC 322 wherein, at paragraph-17 while putting reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sukhwant Singh (Supra) has been pleased to hold therein at paragraph-17, which reads as under:-
"17. As far as Dr O.P. Poddar is concerned, he was only tendered for cross-examination without his being examined-in-chief. Though, Dr O.P. Poddar was not examined-in-chief, this procedure of tendering a witness for cross- examination is not warranted by law. This Court in Sukhwant Singh v. State of Punjab [(1995) 3 SCC 367 :
1995 SCC (Cri) 524 : (1995) 2 Scale 482] held that permitting the prosecution to tender a witness for cross- examination only would be wrong and "the effect of their being tendered only for cross-examination amounts to the failure of the prosecution to examine them at the trial"-39-
2026:JHHC:6786-DB
67. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok Debbarma @ Achak Debbarma Vrs. State of Tripura, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 747 after putting reliance upon the judgment of Sukhwant Singh (Supra) has been pleased to hold at paragraphs-40 and 41 which read as under:-
"40. When we apply the above test to the facts of this case, we are not prepared to say that the accused was not given proper legal assistance by the counsel (sic as counsel had) appeared before the trial court as well as before the High Court. As already discussed in detail, there is clinching evidence in this case of the involvement of the appellant. The evidence tendered by the eyewitnesses is trustworthy and reliable. True, PW 17 should not have been subjected to cross-examination without being put to chief examination. Section 138 of the Evidence Act specifically states that the witness shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined. Consequently, there is no scope under Section 138 of the Evidence Act to start with cross- examination of a witness, who has not been examined-in- chief, an error committed by the trial court.
68. This Court on the basis of the consideration on the issue of reliability of the testimony as recorded in the cross-examination of the tender witness as per the consideration made in the judgment rendered in the case of Sukhwant Singh (Supra) is of the view that herein also the prosecution has tendered the P.W.7 but he has been allowed to be cross-examined, wherein, the testimony has been given by P.W.7 to the effect that at the -40- 2026:JHHC:6786-DB time on the alleged day of occurrence on the day of alleged occurrence he had not seen the Laxman Munda (P.W.1) and he had further stated that at that time Ganpati Mahto was ploughing his field. He had further stated he had seen Ganpati Mahto was ploughing the filed at 10 to 11 A.M.
69. This Court on consideration of such testimony and after considering it from the testimony of P.W.2 and P.W.4 is of the view that the testimony of PW.1 who claimed to sole eyewitness is not fit to be acceptable in toto or beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, it is evident that the testimony of sole eyewitness is not fully trustworthy and reliable and the same is caused serious dent in the prosecution story.
70. At this juncture it requires to refer herein the settled proposition of law that evidence of an eye-witness should be of very sterling quality and caliber and it should not only instill confidence in the court to accept the same but it should also be a version of such nature that can be accepted at its face value. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rai Sandeep @ Deepu alias Deepu V. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 21 has observed that the "sterling witness" should be of very high quality and Caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should -41- 2026:JHHC:6786-DB be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. What would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution of the accused. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid Judgment is being quoted as under:
"22. In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness" should be of very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests -42- 2026:JHHC:6786-DB to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a "sterling witness" whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."
71. Further the prosecution has failed to adduce any cogent evidence during the trial to show that the appellants namely Ganpati Mahto and Parshuram Mahto was having nexus and friendship with Basudeo Singh Munda, that they could participate in the murder for the sake of friendship. Further no any evidence has been produced on behalf of the prosecution to substantiate the fact that prior to said occurrence the prime accused of the case namely Basudeo Singh Munda was heard giving threats in the village to do away with life of Bishan Singh Munda (deceased) before Makar festival.
72. Thus, on the basis of the discussion made herein above this Court is of the considered view that testimony of the sole eyewitness is not fully reliable and trustworthy and as such benefit of doubt might be extended to the appellants.
-43-
2026:JHHC:6786-DB
73. The law is also settled that merely on the basis of presumption and conjecture, there cannot be conviction of a person snatching away the right to life as directed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, rather the principle is that the conviction is to be based upon the evidence as produced by the prosecution witness if found to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt.
74. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decision has propounded the proposition that in the criminal trial, there cannot be any conviction if the charge is not being proved beyond all reasonable doubts, as has been held in the case of Rang Bahadur Singh & Ors. Vrs. State of U.P., reported in (2000) 3 SCC 454, wherein, at paragraph-22, it has been held as under:-
"22. The amount of doubt which the Court would entertain regarding the complicity of the appellants in this case is much more than the level of reasonable doubt. We are aware that acquitting the accused in a case of this nature is not a matter of satisfaction for all concerned. At the same time we remind ourselves of the time-tested rule that acquittal of a guilty person should be preferred to conviction of an innocent person. Unless the prosecution establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt a conviction cannot be passed on the accused. A criminal court cannot afford to deprive liberty of the appellants, lifelong liberty, without having at least a reasonable level of certainty that the appellants were the real culprits. We really entertain doubt about the involvement of the appellants in the crime." -44-
2026:JHHC:6786-DB
75. Likewise, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Krishnegowda & Ors. Vrs. State of Karnataka, (2017) 13 SCC 98 has held at paragraph-26 as under:-
"26. Having gone through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the findings recorded by the High Court we feel that the High Court has failed to understand the fact that the guilt of the accused has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and this is a classic case where at each and every stage of the trial, there were lapses on the part of the investigating agency and the evidence of the witnesses is not trustworthy which can never be a basis for conviction. The basic principle of criminal jurisprudence is that the accused is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt."
76. Further, it needs to refer herein the principle of 'benefit of doubt' belongs exclusively to criminal jurisprudence. The pristine doctrine of 'benefit of doubt' can be invoked when there is reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vrs. Bhagirath & Ors., reported in (1999) 5 SCC 96, wherein, it has been held at paragraph-7 as under: -
"7. The High Court had failed to consider the implication of the evidence of the two eyewitnesses on the complicity of Bhagirath particularly when the High Court found their evidence reliable. The benefit of doubt was given to Bhagirath "as a matter of abundant caution". Unfortunately, the High Court did not point out the area where there is such a doubt. Any restraint by way of abundant caution need not be entangled with the concept of the benefit of doubt. -45-
2026:JHHC:6786-DB Abundant caution is always desirable in all spheres of human activity. But the principle of benefit of doubt belongs exclusively to criminal jurisprudence. The pristine doctrine of benefit of doubt can be invoked when there is reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused. It is the reasonable doubt which a conscientious judicial mind entertains on a conspectus of the entire evidence that the accused might not have committed the offence, which affords the benefit to the accused at the end of the criminal trial. Benefit of doubt is not a legal dosage to be administered at every segment of the evidence, but an advantage to be afforded to the accused at the final end after consideration of the entire evidence, if the Judge conscientiously and reasonably entertains doubt regarding the guilt of the accused."
77. It needs to refer herein that the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 3 SCC 57 has laid down the principle that the golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal case is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted, for reference, paragraph 6 thereof requires to be referred herein which reads hereunder as :-
"6. ------The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal case is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. --"
78. It needs to refer herein before laying down the -46- 2026:JHHC:6786-DB aforesaid view, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 has already laid down the same view at paragraph 163 which is required to be referred which read hereunder as:
"163. We then pass on to another important point which seems to have been completely missed by the High Court. It is well settled that where on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in favour of the prosecution and the other which benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt.---"
79. This Court, after having discussed the factual aspect and legal position as discussed hereinabove is of the view that the on the basis of testimony of sole eyewitness P.W.1 it cannot be stated that the charges against the appellants have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt, as such the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 4th February, 1998 and Order of sentence dated 5th February, 1998 passed by learned IInd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti in Sessions Trial No.690 of 1996 requires interference.
80. Accordingly, impugned Judgment of conviction dated 4th February, 1998 and Order of sentence dated 5 th February, 1998 passed by learned IInd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti in Sessions Trial No.690 of 1996, is hereby quashed and set aside.
81. Since the appellants are on bail as such, they are absolved from the liability of their bail bonds. -47-
2026:JHHC:6786-DB
82. Both the appeals stand allowed.
83. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this Judgment.
84. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
I Agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
12/03/2026
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Alankar / A.F.R.
Uploaded on 12.03.2026
-48-