Jharkhand High Court
Subha Munda @ Khedi Munda @ Chandna D/O … vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 July, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Ambuj Nath
( 2025:JHHC:18245-DB )
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 439 of 2014
...
Against the Judgment of Conviction and Order of sentence dated
13.03.2014 passed by the learned District & Addl. Sessions Judge-I,
Ghatsila in Sessions Trial Case No. 259 of 2011.
…
Subha Munda @ Khedi Munda @ Chandna D/o Binod Munda, resident of
village-Majubera, P.S. Belpahari, District-Pachim Midnapur (W.B.)
… … Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent
…
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
For the Appellant : Mr. Amit Kumar Verma, Advocate
: Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P.
...
CAV ORDER
Dated 1.07.2025
...
Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Verma & Mr. Nagmani Tiwari,
learned Counsels for the appellant and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl. P.P.
2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order of Conviction
and Sentence dated 13.03.2014 passed by Shri Barun Kumar Mishra, learned
Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Ghatsila in S.T. No. 259/2011 whereby and
whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections
302/149,148,307/149,353/149,324/149,147 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section ¾ of Explosive Substance Act, and 17 C.L.A. Act and Section 25 (1-
b)a/26/27/35 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for life with hard labour and fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence
under Section 302/149 I.P.C. and for non-payment of the fine amount to
undergo further simple imprisonment for six months; rigorous imprisonment
for three years for the offence under Section 148 of I.P.C.; rigorous
imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section
307/149 I.P.C. and for non-payment of fine amount to undergo further simple
imprisonment for six months; three years rigorous imprisonment for the
offence under Section 353/149 I.P.C.; rigorous imprisonment for three years
for the offence under Section 324/149 I.P.C.; rigorous imprisonment for life
for the offence under Section 3 and 4 of Explosive Substance Act and fine of
Rs.2,000/- for each of the offences and for non-payment of the fine amount
would entail additional simple imprisonment for six months each; rigorous
imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 17 C.L.A. Act;
rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs. 2000/- for the offence under
Section 25(1-a)/35 and 25 (1-b) of the Arms Act and non-payment of the fine
amount would lead to additional simple imprisonment for six months;
rigorous imprisonment for 7 years each for the offence under Section 26/35
and 27/35 of the Arms Act along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and non-
payment of fine would lead to additional simple imprisonment for each of the
sections. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbayan of Indubhushan
Kumar recorded on 19.11.2009 in which it has been stated that on the same
day at 2 p.m. the informant and the other police personnel were returning to
Gurabanda in an anti-land mine vehicle. When at around 02:25 p.m. as the
vehicle had crossed a pool constructed over Bhakhar Canal a huge explosion
occurred and the anti-land mine vehicle went up in the air and dashed with a
tree considerably damaging the vehicle. All the passengers in the vehicle
received injuries on account of the vehicle getting disbalanced due to the blast.
2
The informant realized that the land mines were planted by the extremist
organization MCC. Before the informant and the police force could regain
composure firing started from three sides and the police force were directed
to surrender by the extremists. One person was taking the name of other
extremists and directing them to fire and snatch the firearms from the police
personnel. The informant and the police force started making retaliatory firing
upon the extremists due to which the extremists could not approach the land
mine vehicle. In the meantime, the informant searched out his mobile and
informed the Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur, S.D.P.O., Ghatsila about
the incident with request to send reinforcements. Immediately reinforcement
arrived at which the extremists started fleeing away. A search was made in the
nearby areas and various incriminating articles were recovered. The injured
were sent to the Hospital and at 10:00 p.m. the informant came to know that
Sub-Inspector Ramjatan Baitha had succumbed to his injuries.
Based on the aforesaid allegations Gurabanda P.S. Case No.16 of 2009
was instituted. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted
and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the court of
sessions where it was registered as S.T. No. 259 of 2011. Charge was framed
against the accused under Sections 147, 148, 353, 307, 324, 302/149 I.P.C.
and Section 3/4 Explosive Substance Act, and 17 C.L.A. and Section 25 (1-b)
a/ 26/27/35 Arms Act which were read over and explained to the accused to
which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses in support of its
case.
5. P.W.1 Megh Rai Hansda did not support the case of the prosecution
and was declared hostile by the prosecution.
3
6. P.W.2 Sanatan Manjhi has stated that on 19.11.2009 at 02:25 p.m. he
and the other police personnel were returning to Gurabanda Police Station
from Shyamsunderpur Police Station and as soon as they reached near
Bhakhar Canal, there was a land mine blast as a result of which they became
injured. They had also fired at the extremists by way of retaliation. Sub-
Inspector of Police Ramjatan Baitha died due to the land mine blast. The
extremists were taking the name of Kanu, Phutu and Phogra directing them to
kill the police party. There was firing from both sides after which the
extremists had fled away. His treatment was done at T.M.H.
In cross-examination he had deposed that order was being given to
Phogra, Kanu, Varun and Sobha to resort to firing. He had seen some women
amongst the extremists. He had seen Sobha Munda on the date of occurrence.
He was called for the Test Identification Parade but he could not attend due to
his serious condition as he was on bed rest for six months.
7. P.W.3 Nand Kishore Mahto has stated that on 19.11.2009 at 02-02:30
p.m. he and the police force had come to Shyamsunderpur P.S. and were
returning to Gurabanda P.S. on an anti-land mine vehicle. As soon as the
vehicle approached the canal, a land mine blast took place which threw up the
vehicle in the air and the extremists had thereafter started firing. Several police
personnel were injured. The extremists were taking the name of Kanu, Phutu
and were goading them to snatch the arms from the police personnel. Some of
the police personnels started making counter firing. The extremists consisted
of both males and females. All the injured were taken to the Hospital. In the
Test Identification Parade he had identified Rakho Haridas and Kajal as the
extremists who were firing. He was treated at T.M.H. and thereafter referred
to Ranchi.
4
In cross-examination he had deposed that other accused persons were
also present in the Test Identification Parade. In the Test Identification Parade
he had identified two accused persons.
8. P.W.4 Rajendra Kumar Dubey was posted as an Officer-in-Charge of
Gurabanda P.S. and he had taken over investigation of Gurabanda P.S. Case
No. 16 of 2009 from the earlier Investigating Officer. He had recorded the
statements of constable Bhushan Nayak, Chhabi Lal Mahto and Hari Shankar
Mahto. On 08.02.2010 he had recorded the confessional statement of
Sukhendu Munda @ Ranjeet @ Bablu. He had received the injury reports of
Jitendra Thakur, Sanatan Manjhi, Nand Kishore Mahto, Siman Lugun and
Parmanand from T.M.H. On 21.12.2010 he had recorded the confessional
statement of Varun Munda @ Suresh. On 18.12.2010 Shobha Munda was
arrested in this case and her confessional statement was recorded by him. The
T.I.P. was held and he had received the T.I. chart from which it appears that
the informant had identified Sukhendu Munda. Another T.I.P. was held in
which the informant had identified Shobha Munda and Varun Munda as the
extremists who were proceeding towards the damaged anti-land mines vehicle
with .303 rifle in their possession. He had submitted supplementary charge-
sheet against Shobha Munda and Varun Munda.
In cross-examination he had deposed that Chhabi Lal Mahto in his
statement had taken the name of Shobha Munda.
9. P.W.5 Rajendra Bhaduri did not support the case of the prosecution
and was declared hostile by the prosecution.
10. P.W.6 Dr. Lalan Choudhary was posted as an Assistant Professor in
the Department of Forensic Medicine MGM Medical College, Jamshedpur
5
and on 20.11.2009 he had conducted autopsy on the dead-body of Ram Jatan
Baitha and had found the following injuries:
Biddle prick right side of neck, right cubital region, Lacerated
wound 2 cm. x 0.25 cm. Muscle deep over right occipital scalp-
Abrasion 3 cm. x 2.5 cm. over klright left leg in front. 2 cm. x 1 cm.
over middle aspect of lower part of right leg. 1.5 cm. x 2 cm, 5 cm. x
2 cm. over right hand Darsal Aspect 8 cm. x 3 cm. over outer and
middle part of thigh 1 cm. x 1 cm. over, Lumber region, 5 cm. x 5 cm.
over right Ankle, Bruise 9 cm. x 3 cm. over right leg front. On
dissection right side of occipital scalp contused 7 cm. x 6 cm. Whole
Brain contused, Anterior chest wall contused all ribs fractured, left
lung contused, right lung dry. Vicera pale, gall bladder empty
stomach contain semi digested food, death caused of death head
injury all above injury except A are caused by hard and blunt
substance object (blast) time since death between 12 hours to 18
hours approximately.
The cause of death was opined to be due to head injury. He has
proved the postmortem report which has been marked as Ext.1
11. P.W.7 Brahmdeo Prasad Yadav has stated that on 19.11.2009 while
he and the other police personnel were returning to Gurabanda P.S. at 1:30
p.m. on an anti-land mine vehicle near the canal a blast had taken place which
damaged the vehicle and injured the police personnel. The extremists were
urging them to surrender otherwise they would be killed. There was firing
from both the sides. He was treated in the Hospital for his injuries.
In cross-examination he had deposed that he does not have any
knowledge about the incident. His statement was not recorded by the police.
12. P.W.8 Indubhushan Kumar is the informant who had stated that on
19.11.2009 at 2:25 p.m. he and the other police personnel were going on an
anti-land mine vehicle to Gurabanda P.S. where after crossing the canal over
Bhakhar river a land mine blast had taken place due to which the vehicle got
severely damaged. There was a continuous firing from outside by the
extremists who were taking the name of each other. He had called the
Superintendent of Police after which reinforcements arrived and the injured
6
were sent to the Hospital in Ambulance. He has proved the formal F.I.R. which
has been marked as Ext.2.
13. P.W.9 Dr. Jayant Kumar Layak was posted in the Department of
Orthopedic in Tata Main Hospital and on 19.11.2009 he had examined
Jitendra Thakur and had found the following:
i. Contusion pelvic area, X-ray, fracture lumber vertebra
grievous injury.
ii. Contusion right lower leg simple injury.
On the same day he had examined Sanatan Majhi and had found the
following:
Dorsal area, D.V. fracture grievous injury.
He had also examined Nand Kishore Mahto and had found the
following:
Right side Pelvic region fracture L II vertebra grievous injury.
He had examined Simon Lugun and had found the following:Contusion right shoulder, pelvic area on X-ray fracture
grievous injury. Left knee and leg simple injury.On the same day, he had examined Parmanand Mahto and had found
the following
Injury right side chest simple contusion right side of chest,
contusion in spine regions.
He has proved the writing of Dr. Dhiraj Kumar and the signature of Dr.
O.P. Patra in the injury reports which have been marked as Ext. 8, 8/I, 8/II,
8/III, 8/IV. He has proved his comment in the injury reports which have been
marked as Ext.9 to 9/IV.
14. P.W.10 Rajesh Kumar was posted as Sub-Inspector of Police in
Gurabanda P.S. He has proved the F.I.R. which has been marked as Ext.5. The
7
seizure list has been proved and marked as Ext.6. He had inspected the place
of occurrence which is a bridge between Bhakhar and Singhpura constructed
over a canal. He has proved the inquest report which has been marked as
Ext.7. He had recorded the restatement of the informant and the statements
of other witnesses. He had conducted the Test Identification Parade of the
accused. Nand Kishore Mahto had identified Rakho Hari Das, Kajal Parmanik
and Rizwan Ansari while Narpat Singh had identified Rizwan Ansari. He has
proved the Test Identification Chart which have been marked as Ext.9 and 9(I)
respectively with objection. The sanction orders obtained from the D.C.
Office have been marked as Ext.10, 10 (I) and 10 (II). He had submitted
charge-sheet against Rakho Hari Das, Kajal Parmanik and Rizwan Ansari
keeping the investigation pending against the rest accused persons.
In cross-examination he has deposed that he was not present when the
T.I.P. was conducted.
15. P.W.11 Kamal Nath Munda has produced the seized articles of
Gurabanda P.S. Case No. 16 of 2009 which includes pistol, magazine, live
cartridges and empty cartridges. He has proved the signature of Investigating
Officer on the magazine marked B/I which have been marked as Ext. X and
X(I). The seizure list of four live cartridges have been proved and marked as
Ext. Y to Y/XIII. Three empty cartridges have been marked as Ext.2 to 2 (I)
& (II).
16. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
in which she had denied her complicity in the commission of the offence.
17. Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted
that the appellant is not named in the F.I.R. None of the witnesses have stated
about the appellant being involved in firing at the police party. It has further
8
been submitted that P.W.4 who had conducted part investigation has stated
about the appellant being identified by P.W.8 in the T.I.P. as an extremist who
was approaching the damaged anti-land mine vehicle with a rifle but no such
T.I. chart has been exhibited and even P.W.8 has not whispered about such
identification.
18. Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl. P.P. has submitted that the appellant
was identified in the dock as one of the extremists and several of the witnesses
have identified her as one of the persons actively participating in order to
eliminate the police force itself.
19. We have heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties and have
also perused the trial court records.
20. The land mine blast which damaged the anti-land mine vehicle created
absolute mayhem as the extremists started indiscriminate firing at the police
force who were trapped inside the vehicle. Retaliation, in spite of heavy odds
was resorted to by way of firing at the extremists and with the arrival of
reinforcements the extremists had fled away. P.W.2 had taken the name of the
appellant to the extent that the extremists were calling each other by name and
he had heard the name of the appellant being taken. Such evidence cannot be
an instrument of substance to come to a definite conclusion about the presence
of the appellant with the extremists. The other witness is P.W.4 who is a part
Investigating Officer who has stated that P.W.8 had identified the appellant in
the Test Identification Parade and she was attributed to have made an approach
to the damaged anti-land mine vehicle with a rifle. Such evidence of P.W.4 is
discarded for the reasons that (a) P.W.8 in his evidence has not even whispered
of having participated in the Test Identification Parade and (b) the T.I.P. chart
which has been referred by P.W.4 has not been exhibited. In fact, a cloud of
9
mist hovers over the fact as to whether a Test Identification Parade was ever
held or not so far as the appellant is concerned. A T.I.P. has its own importance
as it enables a witness to identify a suspect seen during a crime. It acts as an
instrument of corroboration to the eye-witness account. This process should
have been adopted by the Investigating Officer during the investigation after
following the procedural necessities but having not resorted to the same the
identification of the appellant in the dock cannot be a reliable piece of
evidence more so when the appellant has regularly been produced in the court.
This of course could have been a corroborative piece of evidence had there
been other reliable evidence to link the appellant with the murderous assault
committed upon the police party. Absence of any evidence does render the
case of the prosecution doubtful so far as the appellant is concerned.
21. We, therefore, on the basis of the discussions made here-in-above set
aside the Judgment and Order of Conviction and Sentence dated 13.03.2014
passed by Shri Barun Kumar Mishra, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I,
Ghatsila in S.T. No. 259 of 2011.
22. This appeal is allowed.
23.. Since the appellant is in custody, she is directed to be released
immediately and forthwith if not wanted in any other case.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)
(Ambuj Nath, J)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated the 01.07.2025
P.K.S./N.A.F.R.
10