Jharkhand High Court
Sukhdeo Choudhary vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 21 August, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:24784-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 253 of 1997 (R)
(Against the Impugned order of conviction dated 03.10.1997 and
Order of sentence dated 04.10.1997, passed by learned First
Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 120 of
1996)
1. Sukhdeo Choudhary, son of Kheman Chowdhary
2. Kailash Choudhary, son of Kheman Choudhary
Both residents of Village Sonbad, Police Station Ahilyapur,
district Giridih
... Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) ... Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
-------
For the Appellants : Mr. Deepak Kumar Prasad, Amicus
: Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P.
----------------------------
CAV on 21 July, 2025
st
Pronounced on 21st August, 2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.:
1. The instant appeal under Sections 374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the judgment of
conviction dated 03.10.1997 and order of sentence dated
04.10.1997, passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge,
Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 120 of 1996 whereby and
whereunder, the appellants named above have been convicted
under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code
and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life
under Section 302/34 of IPC and 10 years RI under Section
1
2025:JHHC:24784-DB
307/34 of IPC, both the sentences have been directed to run
concurrently.
Factual Matrix
2. The prosecution case, in brief, as per fardbeyan dated
22.08.1995 of the informant, Gulu Baski (P.W.7) is that on
22.08.1995, in the day time he went to Giridih on a Scooter
along with the deceased Kishun Marandi alias Manshu Marandi
alias Guruji. They returned to Taratand Ahilyapur Chowk at
6.00 P.M. from Giridih and took tea in a hotel at the Chowk.
Thereafter, at 8.00 P.M. they proceeded towards their house at
Thadhi Mahua and the deceased was riding the scooter and he
was sitting behind him on pillion. They arrived at Thadhi
Mahua Tola at 08.05 P.M. and as soon as the deceased slowed
down the scooter and turned the scooter towards his house in a
lane, three persons appeared from the side of the Dewta Ghat of
Kishun Marandi, in the front and suddenly a bomb exploded.
Both Kishun and the informant sustained explosive injuries and
he fell down and Kishun Marandi died on the spot. The scooter
remained in starting position and there was light around it. The
informant identified the appellants Kailash Choudhary and
Sukhdeo Chaudhary, both sons of Kheman Choudhary of
village Sonebad. The informant further stated that there was an
unknown person along with Kailash Choudhary and Sukhdeo
Chaudhary, to whom he saw and he claimed to identify him by
face. The informant further stated that the deceased was a
2
2025:JHHC:24784-DB
prominent person of Taratand Panchayat and he used to settle
petty dispute in his village and the neighbourhood due to which
terrorist of the area were inimical to him. The deceased did not
allow the terrorists to enter his locality and before his killing he
was threatened by them. Informant further stated that there
was a land dispute between the Kheman Choudhary and Nakul
Choudhary and the deceased helped Nakul Choudhary, who
was a poor man. In the year 1994, both Nakul Choudhary and
Kheman Chaudhary had a dispute concerning Mahua tree.
Kheman Choudhary had sold the said Mahua tree to Daud
Ansari and Nakul Choudhary with the help of the deceased had
stopped the lifting of the tree. The police came to know about
the said dispute and then, there was a measurement by Anchal
Office and it was found that the Mahua tree was standing over
gair-majurua land and then the branches of the said Mahua tree
was auctioned, which was purchased by Daud Ansari.
Thereafter, trunk of the Mahua tree was auctioned on
14.08.1995 in the Anchal Office and Daud Ansari had taken the
said Mahua tree in auction for Rs. 1155/-. Informant further
stated that with the help of Kishun Marandi, stay was taken for
the aforesaid auction order from L.R.D.C.’s Office. On
16.06.1995 accused Kheman Choudhary told Butulal Murmu
(P.W-8), to forbid his friends Kishun Marandi, to help Nakul
Choudhary in the matter. Again, accused Kheman Choudhary
went to the house of Butulal Murmu on 21.08.1995 and said
Butulal Murmu to forbid his friends Kishun Marandi, to help
3
2025:JHHC:24784-DB
Nakul Choudhary. The informant further stated that while the
accused had exploded the bomb and killed Kishun Marandi and
injured the informant and were fleeing away, Suraj Marandi
(P.W-9) had seen them fleeing away. Accused Kailash
Choudhary and Sukhdeo Chaudhary, had killed the deceased
due to his popularity, in conspiracy with the Lalkhand and
terrorist, out of enmity.
3. On the basis of the fardeyan of the informant FIR being
Ahilyapur P.S. Case No. 38 of 1995 dated 23.08.1995 was
registered under Section 302/307/324/120A/34 of IPC and
under Section ¾ of the Explosive Substance Act. After
investigation, chargesheet was submitted and the case was
committed to the court of sessions. Charges were framed
against the appellants under 302,307 and 120(B) of IPC and
under Section ¾ of the Explosive Substance Act and trial was
held. At the conclusion of trial, appellants were convicted and
sentenced as aforesaid, hence, this appeal.
4. The prosecution in order to prove the case has adduced
evidence, both documentary and oral whereas the defence case
is total denial of the involvement of the accused persons in the
case.
5. The prosecution had examined altogether 23 witness in support
of its case out of whom P.W-7 Gulu Baski, is the informant of
the case; P.W-1 is Manjhia Marandi, who is the father of the
deceased; P.W-2 Imoli Kumari and P.W-3 Demoli Kumari, both
4
2025:JHHC:24784-DB
are daughters of the deceased; P.W.4 Hiralal Marandi, is the
brother of the deceased ;P.W-5 is Nakul Choudhary;P.W-6 is
Damrulal Marandi who is also brother of the deceased; P.W.- 8
is Butu Murmu; P.W-9 is Sarju Marandi ; P.W-10 is Moti
Marandi; P.W-11 is Babli Devi, who is the wife of the deceased;
P.W. 12 is Mathur Bhogta; P.W-13 is Dr. Rajendra Choudhary
and he had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead
body of the deceased; P.W-14 is Doctor Shashi Bhushan
Choudhary, who had examined the informant; P.W-15 is
Rawan Marandi; P.W-16 is Kistu Marandi; P.W-17 is Sunder
Modi; P.W-18 is Ram Kishore sah;P.W-19 is Sonu Bhogta; P.W-
20 Satyendra Narain Singh, is the first Investigating Officer of
the case; P.W-22 is A.S.I. Nurul Hassan Khan and P.W-23 Brij
Nandan Rai, is the is the second Investigating Officer of the
case.
6. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence of witnesses,
examination-in-chief and cross-examination, recorded the
statement of the accused persons and found the charges
levelled against the appellants proved beyond all reasonable
doubts.
7. Accordingly, the appellants have been convicted under Sections
302/34 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section
302/34 of IPC and 10 years RI under Section 307 of IPC, both
the sentences have been directed to run concurrently, against
5
2025:JHHC:24784-DB
the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence the present
appeal has been filed.
Arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants:
8. The Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has assailed
the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence on
the following grounds:
(i) Prosecution has miserably failed in proving the charge
leveled against the appellants and learned trial court has
committed error of law in evaluating and analyzing the
evidence in coming to the conclusion.
(ii) The learned counsel for the appellants has bring the
attention towards the delay in the dispatch of the FIR to
the concerned Magistrate. The occurrence is said to have
taken place on 22.08.1995 at 8.05 P.M, and only after 55
minutes, i.e., at 9.00 P.M., the fardbeyan of the informant
was recorded. The Police Station was at a distance of 2
KMs from the place of occurrence, but the case was
registered at Police Station on 23.08.1995 at 9.00 P.M.
(iii) Further, he has submitted that the inquest report has
been prepared on 23.08.1995 at 6.00 A.M. and the
seizure list was also prepared on the same date at 6.30
A.M., there is no reason as to why the seizure list was not
prepared at night. The Court has been kept in dark as to
6
2025:JHHC:24784-DBwhat happened after recording of the fardbeyan on
22.08.1995 at 9.00 P.M. till the morning of 23.08.1995.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants, based upon the
aforesaid grounds, has submitted that, therefore, it is a fit case
where the present appeal deserves to be allowed.
Arguments advanced by the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the State:
10. Per Contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on
behalf of State has defended the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence taking the ground that the
impugned judgment has been passed based upon the testimony
of witnesses who have supported the prosecution version.
11. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the State that
the informant (P.W.-7), who is an independent witness and is
not closely related with the deceased, was present at the time of
occurrence. In the fardbeyan, informant has clearly stated that
three persons had appeared from the side of Devta Ghar, who
have been identified by the present witness.
12. It has further been stated by the learned State counsel that all
the witnesses have deposed about the previous enmity between
the present appellants and the deceased regarding land dispute
and Mahua tree.
7
2025:JHHC:24784-DB
13. Learned State counsel based upon the aforesaid ground has
submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt
of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt.
Analysis:
14. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual aspect and contention
of the learned counsel for the parties this Court is now
proceeding to consider the testimonies of witnesses which have
been recorded by learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court
during the trial has altogether examined 23 witnesses and for
better appreciation, the testimony of the witnesses is being
referred as under:
(I) P.W.-1 Manjhia Marandi, is the father of the deceased.
P.W-1 has stated in his evidence that while he was at his
darbaja at 8.00 P.M., there was a bomb explosion. He
went to the place of occurrence where Gulu Baski was
shouting and saw he was injured and his son was lying
on the ground near the scooter. Gulu Baski told them
that the accused Sukhdeo Choudhary, Kailash
Chaudhary and an unidentified person had killed his
son. P.W-1 further stated that stated that his son Kishun
Marandi was a Jharkhand Leader and he was popular
and influential person. He always settled the village
disputes but Sukhdeo Choudhary and Kheman
Choudhary opposed him. He has also stated about long-
standing land dispute between Kheman Choudhary and
8
2025:JHHC:24784-DB
Nakul Choudhary and the deceased helped Nakul
Choudhary. There was dispute between Kheman
Choudhary and Nakul Choudhary relating to land and for
a Mahua tree. Kheman Choudhary had sold that tree, but
the deceased stopped the tree from being taken away and
the tree was perhaps auctioned.
In his cross-examination P.W-1 has stated that
Kheman Choudhary had not sold tree in his presence.
The tree was also not auctioned in his presence.
(II) P.W-2 Imoli Kumari, is the daughter of the deceased.
P.W-2 has stated in her evidence that on the day of
occurrence at 8.00P.M, she heard sound of bomb
explosion and she went to the place of occurrence. Gulu
Baski was crying and her father was lying dead. Gulu
Baski told that Sukhdeo Choudhary, Kheman
Choudhary and Kailash Choudhary had assaulted him
and they had killed her father. P.W-2 has further stated
that there was dispute between Kheman Choudhary
and Nakul Choudhary and her father used to help
Nakul Choudhary.
In her cross-examination P.W-2 stated that her
father had told about the dispute between Nakul
Choudhary and Kheman Choudhary. They had not
quarrelled in her presence.
(III) P.W-3 Demoli Kumari, is also daughter of the deceased.
P.W-3 has stated in her evidence that on the day of
occurrence at 8.00P.M, she heard sound of bomb
explosion and they went to the place of occurrence
along with family.Her father was lying in pool of blood
and Gulu Baski was crying. Gulu Baski told that
accused Sukhdeo Choudhary, Kailash Choudhary and
9
2025:JHHC:24784-DB
one unidentified person had hurled the bomb. P.W-3
has stated about the dispute between Kheman
Choudhary and Nakul Chaudhary relating to land and
Mahua tree and her father used to help Nakul
Chaudhary as Nakul Chaudhary was poor. P.W-3 has
further stated Butulal Murmu was friend of her father
and Kheman Choudhary had told Butulal Murmu to
forbid her father to help Nakul Choudhary otherwise he
will have to face the consequences.
In cross-examination P.W-3 has stated that Kheman
Choudhary and Nakul Choudhary had not quarreled for
land and Mahua Tree in her presence.
(IV) P.W.4 Hiralal Marandi, is the brother of the
deceased.P.W-4 has stated in his evidence that on the
day of occurrence at 8.00P.M, he was in his house, when
he heard sound of bomb explosion and went to the place
of occurrence. He found his brother Kishun Marandi was
lying dead in a pool of blood and Gulu Baski was crying.
Gulu Baski disclosed that Sukhdeo Choudhary, Kailash
Choudhary and an unidentified person had killed the
deceased. Gulu had sustained injuries over his forehead
and left cheek. P.W-4 has also stated about dispute
concerning Mahua tree between Nakul Choudhary and
Kheman Choudhary and his brother had helped Nakul
Choudhary.
In his cross-examination, P.W-4 has stated that
Nakul Choudhary and Kishun Choudhary had not
10
2025:JHHC:24784-DB
quarreled in his presence and his deceased brother had
not settled any dispute between them in his presence.
(V) P.W.-6 Damrulal Marandi, is also brother of the
deceased. P.W-6 has stated in his evidence that on the
day of occurrence he had gone to Gandey and while he
was returning therefrom, he learnt about the murder of
his brother on the way. When he returned home, he
found that his brother Kishun Marandi was killed with
bomb. P.W-6 further stated that Gulu had told that
Sukhdeo Choudhary, Kailash Choudhary and an
unidentified person had killed the deceased. P.W-6 has
also stated that there was quarrel between Kheman
Choudhary and Nakul Choudhary due to tree. He has
also stated about holding out threats on 16.08.95 and
21.08.95 by Kheman Choudhary to the deceased through
his friend Butulal Murmu.
In his cross-examination, P.W-6 has stated that
quarrel between Kheman and Nakul Choudhary did not
take place in his presence regarding the tree.
(VI) P.W.-7 Gulu Baski, is the informant of the case.
Informant has stated in his evidence that on
22.08.1995, he had gone to Giridih along with Kishun
Marandi, on scooter. Kishun Marandi was riding the
scooter and he was sitting behind him on pillion. They
returned to Ahilyapur at 7.00 P.M. from Giridih and
they took tea at the chowk. Thereafter, they proceeded
towards their house at Thadhi Mahua and the deceased
11
2025:JHHC:24784-DB
was riding the scooter and he was sitting behind him on
pillion. At 8.00 P.M., they came near their house, where
the occurrence took place. In order to turn, scooter was
slowed down, near Devta Aasthan, from where three
persons- Sukhdeo Choudhary and Kailash Choudahary,
came out and there was a bomb explosion. Due to
bomb explosion he and Kishun Marandi sustained
injury as a result they fell down and Kishun Marandi
died due to bomb blast. The scooter was in starting
condition and it threw light and in scooter light, he
identified the accused Sukhdeo Choudhary and Kailash
Choudhary but could not identify the third person.
Informant further stated that Kishun Marandi was a
prominent person of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha at
Taratand Panchayat. He used to settle petty dispute
and terrorists were not happy with him. He does not
know if somebody had threatened Kishun Marandi.
Informant further stated that there was a dispute
between Kheman Choudhary and Nakul Choudhary
relating to a tree and the land. Nakul Choudhary was
poor and so Kishun Marandi helped him. Kheman had
sold the Mahua tree to Daud Mian,but, Kishun Marandi
had stopped the lifting of the tree with the help of
Anchal, then the tree was auctioned. The auction was
also stayed through the L.R.D.C. by Kishun Marandi.
Butulal Murmu had cautioned Kishun Marandi in this
matter. Kheman Choudhary had told Butulal Murmu
(P.W-8), to forbid his friends Kishun Marandi, to help
Nakul Choudhary in the matter otherwise bad
consequences would follow. Butulal Murmu had
cautioned Kishun Marandi for the first time five days
before of the occurrence and again one day before the
occurrence. He had narrated about the occurrence to
the people. Sarju Marandi had seen the accused fleeing
12
2025:JHHC:24784-DB
away. Informant further stated that he was treated in
Sadar Hospital, Giridih. Informant has identified his
signature on the fardbeyan which was marked as Ext.-
1.
In his cross-examination, informant has stated that
he was hospitalised for 10 days. He did not sustain
injury all over his face. His face was not blackened due
to smoke of bomb explosion. Little blood came out from
his face and shoulder. The discharge slip of the hospital
is in his possession and he had not given the same to
anyone. Officer-in-charge had taken his statement at
the place of occurrence. Bara Babu of Ahilyapur P.S.
had recorded his statement on the next day after the
occurrence in the hospital and he had put his signature
over his statement. Nurul Hassan had recorded his
statement at the place of occurrence. Nurul Hassan
Khan had taken him to Giridih Sadar Hospital. He
cannot say about the name of the scooter. Only one
bomb had exploded in front of the scooter. There was a
smoke, sound and light due to explosion.
Informant further stated that, Nakul Choudhary
and Kheman Choudhary, never quarreled in his
presence and he had not seen the Mahua tree, for
which there was quarrel between them. The tree was
not auctioned in his presence. It was not purchased by
Daud Mian in his presence. Kishun Marandi had not
filed any application in his presence so that the tree
may not be sold. He learnt about their quarrel between
Nakul Choudhary and Kheman Choudhary, from
Kishun Marandi. Butulal Murmu had not cautioned
Kishun Marandi in his presence. Kheman Choudhary
had not told Butulal Murmu in his presence. He had
seen the three accused before the bomb was thrown.
Infromant further stated that he had stated before he
13
2025:JHHC:24784-DB
police that he had identified two persons Kailash
Choudhary and Sukhdeo Choudhary fleeing away after
exploding bomb. The accused had fled away after the
occurrence towards the western side. Sarju Marandi
lives at Lewatand tola after Bahiar. He had seen Sarju
Marandi at the place of occurrence. He came to the
Place of occurrence about 10/15 minutes before
Daroga’s arrival.
(VII) P.W.- 8 is Butu Murmu and he has stated in his evidence
that on the day of occurrence at 8.00P.M he was taking
his meal when he heard loud sound and halla. He came
to Thadhi and saw many persons assembled near the gali
of Mansu Marandi. The deceased was lying dead and
Gulu was also injured and Gulu had sustained some
injury. Gulu told them about the occurrence and also
disclosed the name of the accused Sukhdeo Choudhary,
Kailash Choudhary and an unidentified person. P.W-8
has also stated about the dispute of Mahua tree between
Nakul Choudhary and Kheman Choudhary. Kishun
Marandi used to help Nakul Choudhary, who was a poor
man. On 16.8.1995 and 21.08.1995, Kheman Choudhary
had visited his house and told him to inform his friend
Kishun Marandi, not to help Nakul Choudhary, otherwise
serious consequences would follow.
In cross-examination, P.W-8 has stated that on
halla, both male and female persons in the village armed
with pharsa, tangi etc. went Thadhimahua. The distance
between his village and Thadhimahua is half a kilo meter.
14
2025:JHHC:24784-DB
He did not find an assemblage of 3000 persons at
Thadhimahua and about 30/40 persons were present at
that place. He stayed there for about one hour and by
that time, about 100-150 persons had arrived there. P.W-
8 further stated that while he met with Kheman
Choudhary, nobody else was present there.
(VIII) P.W-9 is Sarju Marandi and he has stated in his evidence
that on the date of occurrence he was in his house at
8.00P.M. He heard a loud sound of bomb explosion and
went to western Bahiar with a pharsa and a torch and
saw the accused Sukhdeo Choudhary, Kailash
Choudhary and an unidentified person running towards
him in his direction. He saw them in the torch light. He
chased them and threw pharsa as a result Sukhdeo
Choudhary sustained simple injury and fled away.
Thereafter, he came to the place of occurrence and found
Kishun Marandi was lying dead in front of his house and
Gulu was also injured. PW-9 has further stated that the
deceased Kishun Marandi was a leader and helped the
poor. There was a dispute between Nakul Choudhary
and Kheman Choudhary relating to land and Mahua tree
and the deceased used to help Nakul Choudhary. P.W-9
has further deposed that Kheman Choudhary went to
Butulal Murmu and told him to inform his friend Kishun
Marandi not to help Nakul otherwise Kishun Marandi will
have to face the consequences.
15
2025:JHHC:24784-DB
In his cross-examination, P.W-9 has stated that
Lalkhandi had also threatened to kill the deceased. He
has further stated that he had heard the sound of bomb
and came out from his house alone. In the Bahiar, he
saw three persons were fleeing away. There was a loud
halla that Sukhdeo Choudhary was fleeing away after
hitting with the bomb. He heard that Sukhdeo
Choudhary had thrown bomb while he was in his house.
He has further deposed that he had not seen the quarrel
between Nakul Choudhary and Kheman Choudhary and
when Kheman Choudhary had gone to tell Butulal, he
was not present there.
(IX) P.W.-10 is Moti Marandi, and he has stated in his
evidence that on the date of occurrence at 8.00 P.M., he
was in his house, when he heard sound of explosion and
came out. He went in front of the house of Kishun
Marandi where Gulu Baski told him that Sukhdeo
Choudhary had killed the deceased by throwing bomb
and Kailash Choudhary and unidentified persons were
accompanying him. The deceased was lying dead and
Gulu also had sustained injuries over his cheek and
shoulder. P.W.-10 has stated about the dispute with
regard to the tree and the land between Nakul Choudhary
and Kheman Choudhary.
16
2025:JHHC:24784-DB
In his cross-examination, P.W.-10 has stated that
he is not gotia of the deceased and he does not know as
to when daroga took the statement of Gulu Baski. He has
also deposed that he had not seen the dispute between
Nakul Choudhary and Kheman Choudhary.
(X) P.W-11 is Babli Devi, who is the wife of the deceased.
P.W-11 has stated in her evidence that on the day of
occurrence at 8 P.M., she was in her house when she
heard sound of explosion. She came out with members of
her family and saw Gulu Baski injured and her husband
was lying dead in a pool of blood. P.W-11 further stated
that Gulu Baski informed them that Sukhdeo Choudhary
and Kailash Choudhary and an unidentified person had
killed her husband. She has also stated about the dispute
with respect to the land and Mahua tree between Kheman
and Nakul and her husband helped Nakul Choudhary
due to his poverty. Kheman Choudhary threatened
Butulal Murmu on 16.8.95 and 21.8.95 to make his
friend Kishun Maradi understand that he should not help
Nakul Choudhary otherwise he has to face consequences.
In her cross-examination, P.W-11 has stated that
the dispute between Kheman and Nakul did not take
place in her presence.
(XI) P.W-12 is Mathur Bhogta and he has stated in his
evidence that on the day of occurrence at 8 P.M, he was
17
2025:JHHC:24784-DB
in his house and ran towards the house of Kishun
Marandi on hearing the sound of explosion. He found the
deceased lying dead and Gulu Baski in an injured
condition. Gulu Baski said that accused Sukhdeo
Choudhary, Kailash Choudhary and an unidentified
person had killed the deceased by throwing bomb.
Deceased was a leader of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha and
helped the poor.
In cross-examination, P.W-12 stated that
occasionally he worked in the place of Kishun Marandi in
capacity of Kamia (Servant).
(XII) P.W-13 is Doctor Rajendra Choudhary and he had
conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of
the deceased Kishun Marandi. Doctor has stated that on
23.08.1995, he was posted in Sadar Hospital, Giridih and
on that date at 8.00 P.M, he conducted post mortem
examination in artificial light by order of Deputy
Commissioner, Giridih. He has further stated that Docter
K. Kumar was the observer at that time. He found rigor
mortis present in lower limbs. The abdomen was
distended. The external injury viz extensive lacerated
injury over the face extending from lower part of nose
below and upward up to the forehead 2″ behind the hair
line in front. The depth was maximum over the nose
towards the center of the wound, and both eyes and nose
18
2025:JHHC:24784-DB
were absent. Singeing of sculp hair in front with multiple
tiny charring spot over the skin of rest part of the face,
right side of the shoulder and front of the chest on the
upper part. On dissection, skull bone was fractured in
multiple pieces with protusion of brain meninges. Intra-
cranial cavity contained blood clot. Maxillary and nasal
bone fractured in pieces. Mandiblular bone fractured.
Neck-subqutenious tissues NAD, Hyoid bone-intact,
Larrings, trachea -NAD, Chest wall-intact. Lungs-NAD,
Heart-both chamber empty. Liver, kidney-NAD. Stomach-
empty and Mucosa- NAD.
Doctor deposed that all the above injuries were ante-
mortem in nature caused by explosive substance, like
bomb blast. Doctor opined that death was caused by
extensive, shock and hemorrhage and time since death to
post-mortem examination was about 24 hours. Doctor
has proved the post-mortem report which was marked as
Ext.-2
In cross-examination, doctor has stated that the
dead body was received at the hospital at 7.20 P.M.
(XIII) P.W-14 is Dr. Shashi Bhushan Choudhary, Civil
Assistant Surgeon, Sadar Hospital, Giridih. P.W-14 has
stated in his evidence that he had examined Gulu Baski,
on 22.8.95 at 11:05 P.M. and found spurting with
charring by explosive materials on the face. The injury
19
2025:JHHC:24784-DB
was simple in nature caused by explosive material. The
age of the injury was within 12 hours. Doctor has proved
the injury report of Gulu Baski, which was marked as
Ext.-3.
In his cross-examination, doctor has stated that the
spurting was on whole face. He cannot say whether the
charring was deep or not. He cannot say whether the
patient was admitted in the hospital. He cannot say what
medicine were prescribed to the injured. Doctor further
stated that according to the police, the injury was on the
forehead and cheek, only two injuries and he had
mentioned injuries on face and so all over the face. The
second injury mentioned by the police over the shoulder
was not found by him and he did not find pellets inside
the injuries.
(XIV) P.W-15 is Rawan Marandi and he has stated in his
evidence that while Kishun Marandi and Gulu Baski were
coming from Birsha Morh, he also took his seat behind
them on the scooter and he got down near his house.
Hardly he had reached up to his gate, he heard sound of
bomb explosion. He ran towards the place of occurrence
and saw Kishun Marandi lying dead due to bomb injury
and Gulu Baski in injured condition. P.W-15 further
stated that Gulu told him that Sukhdeo Choudhary,
Kailash Choudhary and one unknown person came out
20
2025:JHHC:24784-DB
and Sukhdeo Choudhary hurled bomb and killed Kishun
Marandi. P.W-15 has further stated that there was the
land dispute and the dispute regarding Mahua tree
between Kheman and Nakul Choudhary and Kishun
Marandi used to help Nakul Choudhary. Butulal Murmu
had told him about the threat by the Kheman Choudhary
to Nakul Choudhary. He has further stated that inquest
report was prepared by inspector Nurul Hasan, in his
presence and the inquest report was marked as Ext.-4.
In cross-examination, P.W-15 has stated that his
house is at a distance of 4/5 hundred feet from the house
of deceased.
(XV) P.W-16 is Kistu Marandi and he has stated in his
evidence that on the date of occurrence at 8 P.M. he was
at his house, when he heard sound of bomb explosion.
He went to the place occurrence and saw Kishun Marandi
was lying dead due to bomb blast and Gulu Baski in an
injured condition. Gulu Baski told about throwing of
bomb by Sukhdeo Choudhary accompanied by Kailash
Choudhary and an unidentified person. He has also
stated about the dispute between Kheman Choudhary
and Nakul Choudhary. P.W-16 further stated that there
was land dispute and the dispute regarding Mahua tree
between Kheman and Nakul Choudhary and Kishun
Marandi used to help Nakul Choudhary.
21
2025:JHHC:24784-DB
In cross-examination, P.W-16 has stated that the
place of occurrence is at a distance of five yards from his
house. P.W.-16 further stated that he had seen the
quarrel between Kheman and Nakul, 8/10 days prior to
the death of Kishun Marandi. The dispute was regarding
the Mahua tree and the land.
(XVI) P.W-17 Sunder Modi has stated in his evidence that
blood-stained earth was seized by the police on
23.08.1995 at 6 A.M. at the place of occurrence. The
seizure list was prepared by Nurul Hassan Khan, police
in his presence and he put his signature on it and the
said seizure list was marked as Ext.-5.
(XVII) P.W-18 Ram Kishun Sah has stated in his evidence that
blood-stained earth was seized by the police on
23.08.1995 in the morning at the place of occurrence.
P.W-18 has stated that he put his signature on the
seizure list along with Sunder Modi.
(XVIII) P.W-19 Sonu Bhogta has stated in his evidence that on
the date of occurrence, he was at his home and heard
sound of bomb explosion. He rushed to the place of
occurrence and found Kishun Marandi dead due to bomb
explosion and Gulu Baski was injured. There was quarrel
between Kheman and Nakul Choudhary and Kishun
Marandi used to help Nakul Choudhary.
22
2025:JHHC:24784-DB
(XIX) P.W-20 Satyendra Narain Singh, is the first Investigating
Officer of the case. He has stated in his evidence that on
23.08.1995 he was posted at Ahilyapur P.S. and he
himself took the investigation of the case. P.W-20 has
proved the injury requisition of Gulu Baski and formal
FIR which were marked as Ext.-6 and Ext.-7 respectively.
P.W-20 has proved the fardbyan which was in the
handwriting and signature of A.S.I. Noor Hasan Khan and
the said fardbeyan was marked as Ext.-8. P.W-20 further
stated that he had inspected the place of occurrence and
the place of occurrence is the public lane about 15 yards
north to the house of the deceased at village Taratand,
tola Thadhimahua. He examined the witnesses present at
the place of occurrence. He received the injury report of
Gulu Baski and post-mortem report of Kishun Marandi.
He handed over the investigation to Brij Nandan Rai,
officer-in -charge, on 21.10.1995, upon his transfer.
In his cross-examination, P.W-20 has stated that
on 23.3.1995 at 8.30 P.M. by rumor he got information
about the death of Kishun Marandi and he went to
Thadhimahua. At Thadhimahua, he met with Nurul
Hassan Khan, the Officer-in-Charge of Taratand out post.
Nurul Hassan had prepared the inquest report and
seizure list of the case. He took over investigation of the
case. He did not record the statement of Nurul Hassan.
He had not prepared the sketch map of the place of
23
2025:JHHC:24784-DB
occurrence. The remains of bomb explosion were not
found at the place of occurrence despite search. He did
not send the blood-stained earth to forensic science
Laboratory for examination. He never recorded the
statement of Gulu Baski.
(XX) P.W-22 is A.S.I. Nurul Hassan Khan who has stated in
his evidence that on 22.08.1995 he was posted at
Taratand and on that day he had recorded the fardbeyan
of Gulu Baski, Thadhimahua tola, villaga Taratand. He
had prepared the inquest report and seized the blood-
stained earth. He had sent the injured Gulu Baski to
Sadar Hospital, Giridih, for treatment.
In cross-examination, he has stated that the F.I.R.
was lodged on the day of occurrence. The Officer-in-
charge Satyendra Narain Singh took charge at the place
of occurrence at about 21.30 hours. The Officer-in-charge
did not record his statement. After handing over the
fardbeyan, inquest report, injury report and the seizure
list to the Officer-in-charge, he had no concern with the
case.
(XXI) P.W-23 Brij Nandan Rai, is the second investigating
officer of the case. He has stated in his evidence that on
05.11.1995, he was posted at Ahilyapur police station. He
took over charge of this case from sub-inspector
24
2025:JHHC:24784-DB
Satyendra Narain Singh. He obtained the sanction order
for prosecution and submitted the charge sheet.
15. Hence, from the testimonies as reproduced above and the
fardbeyan it has come that on 22.08.1995 Kishun
Marandi(deceased) and informant Gulu Baski (P.W-7), in the
day time, had gone to Giridih, on a Scooter. Thereafter, both
were returning to their home situated at village-Taratand,Tola-
Thadhi Mahua and deceased was riding the scooter and Gulu
Baski was sitting behind him on pillion. They arrived at Thadhi
Mahua Tola at 08.05 P.M. and as soon as the deceased slowed
down the scooter and turned the scooter towards his house in a
lane, appellants and an unidentified persons came in front and
suddenly a bomb exploded. Kishun Marandi died on the spot
and informant Gulu Baski sustained explosive injuries. The
informant identified the appellants Kailash Choudhary and
Sukhdeo Chaudhary, both sons of Kheman Choudhary of
village Sonebad, as an assailant.
16. On the above allegation, appellants Sukhdeo Chaudhary and
Kailash Choudhary were tried and convicted under Section
302/34 of IPC and Section 307/34 of IPC.
17. Therefore, this Court on the basis of documents available on
record as exhibited and testimony of the witnesses, is to see as
to whether there is sufficient material to attract offence under
section 302/34 of IPC and Section 307/34 of IPC against the
appellants.
25
2025:JHHC:24784-DB
18. The admitted fact is that-
(1) Deceased Kishun Marandi was leader of a regional political
party.
(2) Kheman Choudhary is father of both the appellants and
there was dispute between Kheman Choudhary and Nakul
Choudhary (P.W-5), relating to Mahu Tree and deceased had
helped Nakul Choudhary (P.W-5) in the matter.
(3) Deceased was a prominent person of Taratand Panchayat
and he used to settle petty dispute in his village and in the
neighbourhood due to which terrorist of the area were
inimical to him and had threatened the deceased to kill.
19. Learned counsel for the appellants has mainly taken the
ground firstly, that the occurrence is of 22.081995 at 8.05 P.M
and fardbeyan was recorded at 9.00 P.M. on the same day itself
and the Police Station was at a distance of 2 KMs from the
place of occurrence, but the case was registered at Police
Station on 23.08.1995 at 9.00 P.M. and secondly, fardbeyan
was recorded at 9.00 P.M on 22.081995, but, inquest report
and seizure list were prepared on 23.08.1995 at 6.00 A.M. and
at 6.30 A.M. respectively and there is no explanation why
inquest report and seizure list were prepared after such long
delay.
20. In the backdrop of the aforesaid discussions, in order to
appreciate the submissions advanced on behalf of appellants
26
2025:JHHC:24784-DB
and the State, this Court in the instant case is to consider
following issues:
(i) Whether there is undue delay in lodging the FIR.
(ii) Whether there is delay in forwarding the F.I.R to Court
i.e. requirement of section 157 CrPC was complied.
(iii) Whether there is delay in preparing the inquest report
and seizure list.
(iv) Whether the sole eye witness of the case in hand i.e.
informant Gulu Baski (P.W.7) is reliable and truthful.
(v) Whether P.W-2 Imoli Kumari, who is daughter of the
deceased had disclosed the name of the appellants in her
statement under section 161 CrPC.
(vi) Whether P.W-9 Sarju Marandi had seen the appellants
fleeing away after the incident.
21. Regarding the first issue i.e. the ground of undue delay in
lodging the FIR, submission has been made that it gives a
reason to doubt that during the period of delay the F.I.R might
have been manufactured to suit the prosecution. On perusal of
record, we find that alleged occurrence took place on
22.08.1995 at 8.05 P.M and only after 55 minutes fardbeyan of
the informant was recorded by P.W-22 A.S.I. Nurul Hassan
Khan, at 9.00 P.M. on 22.08.1995. The Police Station was at a
distance of 2 KMs from the place of occurrence, but the case
was registered at Police Station on the next day on 23.08.1995.
at 9.00 P.M. i.e after delay of 24 hours or one day.
27
2025:JHHC:24784-DB
22. Here, it would be pertinent to see judicial pronouncement of the
Hon’ble Apex Court on the issue of delay in lodging the FIR.
Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Kanhaiya Lal v. State of
Rajasthan, (2013) 5 SCC 655, has said that it is obligatory on
the part of the court to take notice of delay and examine, in the
backdrop of the case, whether any acceptable explanation has
been offered by the prosecution. Paragraph-15 of the said
judgment is quoted herein below-
‘”15. It is settled in law that mere delay in lodging the first
information report cannot be regarded by itself as fatal to
the case of the prosecution. However, it is obligatory on
the part of the court to take notice of the delay and
examine, in the backdrop of the case, whether any
acceptable explanation has been offered by the
prosecution and if such an explanation has been offered
whether the same deserves acceptance being found to be
satisfactory.”
23. Further, Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of H.P. v. Gian
Chand, (2001) 6 SCC 71 at paragraph-12 has held as follows-
“12. Delay in lodging the FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic
formula for doubting the prosecution case and discarding the
same solely on the ground of delay in lodging the first
information report. Delay has the effect of putting the court on
its guard to search if any explanation has been offered for the
delay, and if offered, whether it is satisfactory or not. If the
prosecution fails to satisfactorily explain the delay and there
is a possibility of embellishment in the prosecution version on
account of such delay, the delay would be fatal to the
prosecution. However, if the delay is explained to the
satisfaction of the court, the delay cannot by itself be a ground
for disbelieving and discarding the entire prosecution case. …”
24. Hence, Hon’ble Apex Court in State of H.P.(Supra) has held
that if prosecution fails to satisfactorily explain the delay and
there is a possibility of embellishment in the prosecution
28
2025:JHHC:24784-DB
version on account of such delay, the delay would be fatal to
the prosecution. In the case in hand prosecution has not been
able to explain why there was delay of one day in registering the
FIR though fardbeyan was recorded on 9.00 P.M. at 22.08.1995
and FIR was registered on 23.08.1995. at 9.00 P.M. and this
raises doubt in the prosecution case.
25. Further, we find that the issue of delay in lodging the FIR was
raised by the appellants before the learned trial court and trial
court also at paragraph-37 of the impugned has noted that
despite the fact the police station was at a distance only 2 KMs,
there is no reason as to why the fardbeyan of the informant was
not sent to the police station in the night.
26. Now coming to the second issue i.e. there is delay in forwarding
the F.I.R to Court i.e. requirement of section 157 CrPC was
complied, we find that formal FIR was drawn on 23.08.1995. at
9.00 P.M. and received in the court on 25.08.1995 and the
cause of such inordinate delay in forwarding the FIR to the
court concerned has not been explained by the prosecution.
This fact has also been appreciated by learned trial court and
the at paragraph-39 of the impugned judgment learned trial
court had noted that FIR has been received in the court
concerned on the third day and there is no any valid reason to
explain the delay. The learned trial court has also given a
finding at paragraph-37 of the impugned judgment wherein
trial court had noted that delay in the dispatch of sending the
FIR to CJM, Giridih, makes it probable that there is a
29
2025:JHHC:24784-DB
possibility of improvement in the prosecution story and
introduction of any distorted version by deliberations and
consultations.
27. The issue of sending the special report to the Magistrate as
required under section 157 CrPC was dealt by Hon’ble Apex
Court in case of Ravi Kumar v. State of Punjab, (2005) 9 SCC
315 and paragraph-16 of this judgment is quoted herein below-
“16. Sending the copy of the special report to the Magistrate
as required under Section 157 CrPC is the only external check
on the working of the police agency, imposed by law which is
required to be strictly followed. The delay in sending the copy
of the FIR may by itself not render the whole of the case of
the prosecution as doubtful but shall put the court on guard
to find out as to whether the version as stated in the court
was the same version as earlier reported in the FIR or was
the result of deliberations involving some other persons who
were actually not involved in the commission of the crime.
Immediate sending of the report mentioned in Section 157
CrPC is the mandate of law. Delay wherever found is required
to be explained by the prosecution. If the delay is reasonably
explained, no adverse inference can be drawn but failure to
explain the delay would require the court to minutely examine
the prosecution version for ensuring itself as to whether any
innocent person has been implicated in the crime or not.”
28. Hence, in Ravi Kumar(Supra), Hon’ble court has held that
delay wherever found is required to be explained by the
prosecution. If the delay is reasonably explained, no adverse
inference can be drawn but failure to explain the delay would
require the court to minutely examine the prosecution version
for ensuring itself as to whether any innocent person has been
implicated in the crime or not.
29. But, in the case in hand prosecution has failed to explain the
delay of three days in forwarding the FIR to the court
concerned.
30
2025:JHHC:24784-DB
30. Further, the third issue i.e. delay in preparing the inquest
report and seizure list, we find that inquest report and seizure
list was prepared on 23.08.1995 at 6.00 A.M. and at 6.30 A.M.
respectively and there is no explanation why inquest report and
seizure list were prepared after such long delay though police
had arrived at the place of occurrence immediately within one
hour of the occurrence and had taken fardbeyan of the
informant on 22.08.1995. at 9.00 P.M. Here, it is pertinent to
note that even in the impugned judgment, learned trial court
has also in paragraph-37 has noted that- “there is no reason as
to why the seizure list was not prepared at the night. The court
has been kept in dark as to what happened after recording of
the fardbeyan on 22.08.1995 at 9.00P.M. till the morning of
23.08.1995. It appears that the prosecution has deliberately
concealed the steps were taken at night.” Hence, from the above
discussion it can be concluded that there was undue delay in
preparing the inquest report and seizure list which has not
been answered by the prosecution.
31. The fourth issue is whether the sole eye witness of the case in
hand i.e. informant Gulu Baski is reliable and trustworthy
witness. On this issue, we find that as per prosecution case, on
the day of occurrence deceased was riding the scooter and
informant Gulu Baski was sitting behind him on pillion and
when the deceased slowed down the scooter and turned the
scooter towards his house in a lane, appellants and an
unidentified persons came in front and suddenly a bomb
31
2025:JHHC:24784-DB
exploded as a result Kishun Marandi died on the spot and
informant Gulu Baski sustained explosive injuries. The
informant claimed to identify the appellants Kailash Choudhary
and Sukhdeo Chaudhary, in the light of scooter. But, ongoing
to the cross-examination of the informant, we find that at para-
13, informant has specifically stated that he did not sustain
injury all over his face and he had sustained injury on his left
cheek and on his shoulder. But, doctor P.W-14 had examined
the informant and, in his cross-examination, doctor has stated
that he had mentioned injuries all over the face and he did not
find any injury over the shoulder. Hence, there is deviation in
injury as stated by the injured informant though doctor P.W-14
had examined the informant on 22.05.1995 at about 11.05 P.M
i.e within three hours of the alleged incident.
32. Further, doctor had stated that injury was simple in nature
caused by explosive material. Hence, on the basis of injury
report Ext.-3 of the informant, it can be concluded that
informant has not stated true nature of injuries sustained by
him as found by the doctor because it is unbelievable that due
to bomb explosion when deceased who was riding the scooter
died on the spot as alleged then how, informant who was sitting
on the pillion of the scooter, sustained only simple injury. This
contradiction in the medical report of informant itself leads to
the conclusion that informant is not reliable and trust worthy
witness.
32
2025:JHHC:24784-DB
33. 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 as has been
discussed by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Bipin Kumar
Mondal v. State of W.B., (2010) 12 SCC 91.
34. But, the untrustworthy and unreliability of the informant can
also be inferred from para-14 of his cross-examination
wherein informant has stated that he remained in hospital for
ten days. This raises doubt in the prosecution case because
why a person will be admitted in hospital for ten days when a
person has sustained only simple injury particularly when
prosecution has not filed any papers regarding the treatment of
the informant in the hospital for ten days. Hence, we come to
the conclusion that though informant has been projected as
sole eye witness of the case, but, from the testimony of
informant, it can be said that informant is not reliable and
trustworthy witness.
35. Regarding the fifth issue whether P.W-2 Imoli Kumari Kumari,
who is daughter of the deceased had disclosed the name of the
appellants in her statement under section 161 CrPC. On this
issue we find that P.W-2 had deposed in her cross-examination
that she had told to the police that Gulu Baski had disclosed
the name of the appellants in the killing of deceased. But, at
paragraph-20 of the cross-examination of the first investigating
officer P.W-20 Satyendra Narain Singh, we find that
33
2025:JHHC:24784-DB
investigating officer has specifically deposed that P.W-2 Imoli
Kumari had not stated in her statement that appellants had
killed her father.
36. Hence, not disclosing the name of the appellants in her
statement under section 161 Cr.P.C by the P.W-2 Imoli Kumar,
was material contradiction. These omissions are vital and are
not normal discrepancies and raises doubt in the prosecution
case.
37. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal
Gupta (Dr.) v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 13 SCC 657,
wherein Apex court has dealt material contradiction, which is
quoted for ready reference-
30. While appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into
consideration whether the contradictions/omissions had been
of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial.
Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or
improvements on trivial matters without effecting the core of
the prosecution case should not be made a ground to reject
the evidence in its entirety. The trial court, after going through
the entire evidence, must form an opinion about the credibility
of the witnesses and the appellate court in normal course
would not be justified in reviewing the same again without
justifiable reasons. (Vide State v. Saravanan1.)
31. Where the omission(s) amount to a contradiction, creating
a serious doubt about the truthfulness of a witness and the
other witness also makes material improvements before the
court in order to make the evidence acceptable, it cannot be
safe to rely upon such evidence. (Vide State of Rajasthan v.
Rajendra Singh2.)
32. The discrepancies in the evidence of eyewitnesses, if found
to be not minor in nature, may be a ground for disbelieving
and discrediting their evidence. In such circumstances,
witnesses may not inspire confidence and if their evidence is
found to be in conflict and contradiction with other evidence or
with the statement already recorded, in such a case it cannot
34
2025:JHHC:24784-DB
be held that the prosecution proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt. (Vide Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of
U.P.3)
33. In case, the complainant in the FIR or the witness in his
statement under Section 161 CrPC, has not disclosed certain
facts but meets the prosecution case first time before the
court, such version lacks credence and is liable to be
discarded. (Vide State v. Sait4.)
34. In State of Rajasthan v. Kalki5, while dealing with this
issue, this Court observed as under : (SCC p. 754, para 8)
“8. … In the depositions of witnesses there are always normal
discrepancies however honest and truthful they may be. These
discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal
errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental
disposition such as shock and horror at the time of the
occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are those
which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person.”
35. The courts have to label the category to which a
discrepancy belongs. While normal discrepancies do not
corrode the credibility of a party’s case, material discrepancies
do so. (See Syed Ibrahim v. State of A.P.6 and Arumugam v.
State7.)
36. In Bihari Nath Goswami v. Shiv Kumar Singh8 this Court
examined the issue and held: (SCC p. 192, para 9)
“9. Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle.
But it can be one of the factors to test the credibility of the
prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a
crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility.”
37. While deciding such a case, the court has to apply the
aforesaid tests. Mere marginal variations in the statements
cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be
elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. The
omissions which amount to contradictions in material
particulars i.e. go to the root of the case/materially affect the
trial or core of the prosecution case, render the testimony of
the witness liable to be discredited.
38. Lastly, the sixth issue i.e. whether P.W-9 Sarju Marandi had
seen the appellants fleeing away after the incident. We find that
P.W-9 has been projected as chance witness by the prosecution.
P.W-9 has deposed that on hearing sound of bomb explosion he
went to the place of occurrence taking torch and pharsa and at
western Bahiar in torch light he saw the accused Sukhdeo
35
2025:JHHC:24784-DB
Choudhary, Kailash Choudhary and an unidentified person
running towards him in his direction. He chased them and
threw pharsa as a result appellant Sukhdeo Choudhary
sustained simple injury, but he fled away. In his cross-
examination P.W-9 has deposed that he had shown pharsa to
the daroga and took the pharsa to his home and there was
blood stain in the pharsa. But, investigating officer P.W-20
Satyendra Narain Singh, in his cross-examination at para-23
has deposed that P.W-9 Sarju Marandi had not shown him
torch and pharsa and did not show him the place where he had
identified the appellants.
39. In case of Mano Dutt v. State of U.P., (2012) 4 SCC 79,
Hon’ble Apex Court has dealt with the issue of chance witness
wherein Apex Court has laid down that chance witness to be
relied subject to the evidence being trustworthy and admissible
in accordance with the law. But, in the case in hand testimony
of P.W-9 Sarju Marandi, who is projected as chance witnesses,
to have identified the appellants while fleeing away, is not
trustworthy.
40. Thus, the appellants have tried to question the bona fide of the
prosecution case as well made efforts to show that the version
of the defence is more probable.
41. In the backdrop of these facts and pleadings available on record
this Court has to appreciate the other materials available on
record and has to see the credibility of the testimony of the
36
2025:JHHC:24784-DB
witnesses in order to see whether the case of the prosecution
has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt or not.
42. 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, therefore, this Court has to see whether this
case falls under the law as propounded by Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of Rang Bahadur Singh & Ors. Vrs. State of U.P.,
[(2000) 3 SCC 454] or not, wherein it has been held that 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. For ready
reference, paragraph-22 of the judgment is quoted 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.”
43. Likewise, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Krishnegowda
& Ors. Vrs. State of Karnataka (Supra) 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 to37
2025:JHHC:24784-DBunderstand 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.”
44. This Court, in the entirety of the facts and circumstances, is of
the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges
under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code
against the appellants. Both the appellants Sukhdeo
Choudhary and Kailash Choudhary are acquitted of the charges
by giving benefit of doubt.
45. Accordingly, impugned judgment of conviction dated
03.10.1997 and order of sentence dated 04.10.1997, passed by
learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in Sessions
Trial No. 120 of 1996 are hereby set aside. Appellants Sukhdeo
Choudhary and Kailash Choudhary are discharged from the
liabilities of their bail bond.
46. Consequently, the appeal is allowed.
47. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
48. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned
forthwith, along with a copy of this Judgment.
I agree, (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Samarth /A.F.R.
38