Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand vs Manoj Chandrawanshi @ Manoj … on 30 July, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Sanjay Prasad
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )
(Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence
dated 05.07.2017 (sentence passed on 10.07.2017) passed by
Sri Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay, learned Additional Sessions
Judge-II, Palamau at Daltonganj in S.T. No. 121/2016.)
.............
Death Reference No. 01 of 2017
The State of Jharkhand ... Appellant
Versus
1. Manoj Chandrawanshi @ Manoj Chandravanshi @ Manoj
Singh, R/o Vill- Dulhi Chakradharpur, P.O. & P.S.-
Panrwa, Dist.- Palamau.
2. Sujit Prajapati, S/o Bihari Prajapati.
3. Gana Prajapati, S/o Late Prasad Prajapati
Both R/o Vill- Kanda, P.O. + P.S.- Nawa Bazar
(Bishrampur), Dist.- Palamau, Jharkhand.
4. Santosh Bhuiyan, S/o Late Pyari Bhuiyan, R/o Vill- Jora
Khurd, P.O. & P.s.- Patan, Dist.- Palamau.
5. Munarik Vishwakarma @ Mistri, S/o Late Chalitra
Vishwakarma.
6. Janeshwar Vishwakarma.
Both R/o Vill- Nagesar, P.O.- Dulhi, P.S.- Patan, Dist.-
Palamau
7. Vinay Mistry @ Vinay Vishwakarma, S/o Sita Ram
Vishwakarma @ Sita Ram Mistry, R/o Vill- Nagesar, P.O.
& P.S.- Patan, Dist. Palamau.
... Respondents
With
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1390 of 2017
Manoj Chandrawanshi @ Manoj Chandravanshi @ Manoj
Singh, R/o Vill- Dulhi Chakradharpur, P.O. & P.S.-Panrwa,
Dist.- Palamau. ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
With
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1413 of 2017
1. Sujit Prajapati, S/o Bihari Prajapati.
2. Gana Prajapati, S/o Late Prasad Prajapati
Both R/o Vill- Kanda, P.O. + P.S.- Nawa Bazar
(Bishrampur), Dist.- Palamau, Jharkhand.
... Appellants
Versus
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
With
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1433 of 2017
Santosh Bhuiyan, S/o Late Pyari Bhuiyan, R/o Vill- Jora
Khurd, P.O. & P.s.- Patan, Dist.- Palamau.
... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
With
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1500 of 2017
1. Munarik Vishwakarma @ Mistri, S/o Late Chalitra
Vishwakarma.
2. Janeshwar Vishwakarma.
Both R/o Vill- Nagesar, P.O.- Dulhi, P.S.- Patan, Dist.-
Palamau ... Appellants
Versus
State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
With
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1937 of 2017
Vinay Mistry @ Vinay Vishwakarma, S/o Sita Ram
Vishwakarma @ Sita Ram Mistry, R/o Vill- Nagesar, P.O. &
P.S.- Patan, Dist. Palamau. ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
----
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
----
In D. Ref. No. 01 of 2017
For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl. P.P.
Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl. P.P.
Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.
For the Convicts : Mr. A.S. Dayal, Adv.
Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, Adv.
Mr. B.K. Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Shiv Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Manoj Kumar Choubey, Adv
In Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1390 of 2017
For the Appellant : Mr. A.S. Dayal, Adv.
2|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )
For the Resp. : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl. P.P.
In Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1413 of 2017
For the Appellants : Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, Adv.
For the Resp. : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.
In Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1433 of 2017
For the Appellant : Mr. B.K. Dubey, Adv.
For the Resp. : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl. P.P.
In Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1500 of 2017
For the Appellants : Mr. Shiv Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Resp. : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl. P.P.
In Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1937 of 2017
For the Appellant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Choubey, Adv.
For the Resp. : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.
----
Dated : 30/07/2025
CAV JUDGMENT
Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. :
1. Heard Mr. A.S. Dayal, learned counsel for the appellant in
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1390 of 2017, Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi,
learned counsel for the appellants in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1413 of
2017, Mr. B.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant in Cr.
Appeal (DB) No. 1433 of 2017, Mr. Shiv Kumar Singh, learned
counsel for the appellants in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1500 of 2017,
Mr. Manoj Kumar Choubey, learned counsel for the appellant in
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1937 of 2017 and Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha,
learned Spl. P.P., Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned Spl. P.P. and Mrs.
Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 05-07-2017 (sentence passed on
10-07-2017) passed by Sri Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay, learned
Additional Sessions Judge-II, Palamau at Daltonganj in S.T.
Case No. 121 of 2016, whereby and whereunder, the appellants
have been convicted for the offences under Section 302/149,
364/149 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant
3|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )
Vinay Vishwakarma, Manoj Chandravanshi and Santosh
Bhuiyan have been sentenced to death along with the fine of Rs.
5,000/- each for the offence under Section 302/149 IPC, while
the appellants Sujit Prajapati, Gana Prajapati, Munarik
Vishwakarma and Janeshwar Vishwakarma have been
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, i.e.,
imprisonment for whole of remaining period of natural life of the
convict and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each for the offence
under Section 302/149 IPC, and in default in payment of fine,
all the convicts were further sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for three months. All the seven appellants have
further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10
years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under
Section 364/149 IPC and in default in payment of fine, they are
further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three
months. No separate sentence was extended to the appellant for
the charge framed under Section 120(B) IPC. All the sentences
were directed to run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Raj
Muni Mochi in which it has been stated that in the night between
30/31-03-2015, the informant and his family members were
sleeping after having meal when some persons started shouting
to open the door. They claimed themselves to be the party
members and if the door was not opened, threatening was given
that the house will be set on fire. Out of fear, the informant
opened the door at which, 6-7 persons with their faces covered
entered into the room. Some of the persons remained outside.
The persons who had entered inside had disclosed that the
marriage has been solemnized with a Lohar and hence, the party
will take a decision about the same. They, by assaulting, had
taken away the wife of the informant Phul Kumari Devi, the
disabled son of the informant Chunmun Kumar and the
4|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )
daughter-in-law of the informant, Sonakshi Devi for appearing in
the Jan Adalat in Derwa forest near Sadawar river. The informant
managed to flee away and hid himself in the jungle. In the
morning, he reached Derwa jungle, where he found the dead
body of the abducted persons who all were assaulted with axes.
In course of the assault, the informant had identified Santosh
Bhuiyan, Suresh Bhuiyan, Manoj Chandravanshi and Birendra
Vishwakarma. The reason for the occurrence is that the son of
the informant, Chunmun Kumar used to impart tuition to a girl
of a village, namely, Sonakshi and they developed a relationship
between them which resulted in their elopement for which a case
was instituted and the informant and others had gone to jail.
After coming out from the jail, the son of the informant had once
again eloped with Sonakshi and solemnized court marriage. At
this, threats were extended by Vinay Vishwakarma, Janeshwar
Vishwakarma, Munarik Vishwakarma and Amarik
Vishwakarma. The informant claims that these persons had
hired outsiders, who had committed the murders.
Based on the aforesaid allegations, Patan P.S. Case No.
20/15 was instituted for the offences punishable under Sections
364, 302/34, 120B/109 IPC against Santosh Bhuiyan, Suresh
Bhuiyan, Manoj Chandravanshi, Birendra Vishwakarma, Vinay
Vishwakarma, Munarik Vishwakarma, Amarik Vishwakarma
and 4/5 unknown persons. On completion of investigation,
charge sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken on
29-06-2015, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions,
where it was registered as S.T. No. 121/2016. On 12-05-2016,
charge was framed against the accused persons for the offences
punishable under Sections 302/149, 364/149 and 120B IPC
which were read over and explained to them in Hindi to which
they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution in support of its case has examined as
5|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )
many as thirteen witnesses:
P.W.1 Urmila Devi is the daughter of the informant who
has stated that the incident had taken place about one and half
years back at about 12:00AM. She was in her parents’ house.
About 10 persons had climbed the wall and opened the door from
inside. Her father Raj Muni Mochi was tied, taken outside and
assaulted. He was assaulted with danda and axe as a result of
which, he suffered head injuries. Her father somehow managed
to escape and flee towards the jungle. Her mother was asked
about the whereabouts of her son Chunmun Kumar and when
she replied that he was not in the house, she was subjected to
assault. The miscreants had broken open the door and took out
the brother of this witness Chunmun Kumar and her sister-in-
law Sonakshi Devi, who was pregnant and had taken them
towards the Sadawar river. In the morning, when she and the
others went in search of her mother, brother and sister-in-law
towards Sadawar river, they found the dead body of all three. The
persons who were present included Vinay Vishwakarma,
Birendra Vishwakarma, Santosh Bhuiyan, Suresh Bhuiyan,
Amarik Vishwakarma, Munarik Vishwakarma, Janeshwar
Vishwakarma, Manoj Chandravanshi and two other persons
from Kanda village. She has identified the two persons from
Kanda village in the dock. The reason for the occurrence is that
her brother Chunmun Kumar had solemnized marriage with the
daughter of Vinay Vishwakarma, namely, Sonakshi Devi.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that six days prior
to the incident, she had gone to her parents’ house along with
her husband. When her attention was drawn towards her
statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she has denied not
to have stated about the miscreants climbing the wall and
opening the door. She had not seen as to who had committed the
murder of Phul Kumari Devi, Chunmun Kumar and Sonakshi
6|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )Devi, but it was the accused persons who had taken them away.
About six months prior to the occurrence, Chunmun Kumar had
solemnized marriage with Sonakshi Devi. She has deposed that
the accused persons had covered their faces with Gamcha, which
fact she had disclosed to the Police. When the accused persons
had come, it was dark. She and the others were sleeping when
the accused persons had entered into the house and woke up
when they started assaulting her father.
P.W.2 Sobha Devi has stated that at the time of the
incident, she was at her parents’ house. In the house, her sister
Urmila Devi, father Raj Muni Ram, sister Kusum Kumari, Usha
Kumari, Arjun Ram, mother Phul Kumari Devi, brother
Chunmun and her sister-in-law Sonakshi Devi were present.
They were sleeping when 10 persons climbing the boundary wall
had entered, opened the door and after some time started
assaulting her father. They woke up on hearing his cries. The
miscreants asked them to remain silent as their business was
with Raj Muni, Sonakshi, Chunmun and Phul Kumari. They were
asking about her brother Chunmun at which they had disclosed
that he was not in the house. When they did not open the door,
the miscreants had broken open the door and came inside. Her
brother, sister-in-law and mother were taken away by the
miscreants, while her father managed to flee away. Her brother,
sister-in-law and mother did not return alive. Although she and
the other inmates of the house raised a cry of alarm, but no one
came to their rescue. In the morning during search, the dead
bodies of her brother, sister-in-law and mother were recovered.
The reason for the occurrence is that due to her brother
Chunmun Kumar having solemnized marriage with the daughter
of Vinay Vishwakarma, namely, Sonakshi, Vinay Vishwakarma,
Birendra Vishwakarma, Janeshwar Vishwakarma, Amarik
Vishwakarma, Munarik Vishwakarma, Manoj Chandravanshi,
7|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )Suresh Bhuiyan, Santosh Bhuiyan and two other persons whose
names she does not know had taken away her mother, brother
and sister-in-law. She has identified all the accused persons in
the dock.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that she had come
to her parents’ house 15 days prior to the occurrence. Her
brother had solemnized court marriage in Jammu and Kashmir.
There was no retribution due to such marriage and no case was
also instituted. The night was dark when the incident had taken
place and it was raining. All the miscreants had covered their
faces. She cannot say as to who had committed the murder of
her mother, brother and sister-in-law since she had not followed
them.
P.W.3 Kusum Kumari has stated that the incident is of one
and a half years back and it was night when 8-9 persons entered,
opened the door and started assaulting her father, Raj Muni Ram
with a danda. He was also assaulted on his head with an axe.
They were claiming themselves to be Maoists. Her brother
Chunmun Kumar, mother Phul Kumari Devi and sister-in-law
Sonakshi Devi were forcibly taken away by them and murdered.
In the morning, their dead bodies were found near the Sadawar
river. In her house Santosh Bhuiyan, Vinay Vishwakarma,
Amarik Vishwakarma, Janeshwar Vishwakarma, Mahendra
Vishwakarma, Munarik Vishwakarma, Suresh Bhuiyan, Manoj
Chandravanshi, Sujit Prajapati & Gana Prajapati had come.
These persons had taken away her mother, brother and sister-
in-law. The reason for the occurrence is that her brother
Chunmun Kumar had solemnized marriage with the daughter of
Vinay Vishwakarma, Sonakshi. She has identified all the
accused in the dock.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that it was night
and none of the accused persons had covered their faces. There
8|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )was no light in the corridor. She has also deposed that her
statement was recorded by the Police at 10:00AM near the river.
Her house has six rooms and she was sleeping in a room with
her sister Sobha Devi. When her father was being assaulted by
the accused persons, they had come out from the room. Her
father was taken away by the accused persons while assaulting
him. Sonakshi was taken away by her father from Court, but
once again she had fled away and came with her brother. The
villagers were annoyed by such incident.
P.W.4 Usha Kumari has stated that it was the night of 31-
03-2015, when 9-10 persons came inside, opened the door and
started assaulting her father. When she and the others woke up,
they were also assaulted. The miscreants had broken the door
and had taken out her mother, brother and sister-in-law. Her
father was assaulted with an axe on head. The hands and legs of
her father were tied by them. When an opportunity came, her
father had fled away. The miscreants had taken away her
mother, brother and sister-in-law while assaulting them. The
persons who had come to her house were Suresh Bhuiyan,
Santosh Bhuiyan, Vinay Vishwakarma, Janeshwar
Vishwakarma, Amarik Vishwakarma, Munarik Vishwakarma
and Birendra Vishwakarma apart from two other persons whom
she did not know but could recognize in the dark. She and the
others were following the miscreants, but they were assaulted
and chased away. Her mother, brother and sister-in-law were
taken away and they did not return alive. In the morning, it was
informed that three dead bodies were lying near the river. When
she and the others went, she saw the dead bodies of her mother,
brother and sister-in-law. The reason for the occurrence is that
her brother Chunmun Kumar had solemnized marriage with the
daughter of Vinay Vishwakarma.
In cross-examination on behalf of Janeshwar and Munarik
9|Page
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )Vishwakarma, she has deposed that her brother used to impart
tuition to Sonakshi and other girls. He had eloped with Sonakshi
for which a case was instituted against her father, mother and
brother and all had gone to jail. When her brother came out from
jail, he had once again eloped with the girl and this act was
opposed by the villagers. Janeshwar and Munarik in the said
case had given evidence against her father. The accused persons
had come with their faces covered. She and her other two sisters
were sleeping in a room and they had come out from the room.
The Chowkidar of the village, Nand Kumar Paswan was informed
in the morning who, in turn informed the Police Station. She had
not witnessed the murder. The accused persons had come taking
the name of extremists. The M.C.C. extremists have a presence
in their area and her brother was taken away by the extremists
in the name of holding a Jan Adalat. The distance between her
house and the river from where the bodies were recovered is
about one kilometre. Sarju Bhuiyan, Radhuna Bhuiyan, Kishun
Bhuiyan and others had given the information about the
murders.
In cross-examination on behalf of Sujit Prajapati and Gana
Prajapati, she has deposed that Police did not conduct a Test
Identification Parade.
In cross-examination on behalf of the other accused
persons, she has deposed that she used to talk with the accused.
It was around 12 in the night when the incident had occurred.
P.W.5 Nand Kumar Paswan has stated that the incident is
of a year back. He had gone towards the field to defecate, when
Raj Muni Mochi had disclosed that about 10:00PM, miscreants
had assaulted and abducted his wife, son and daughter-in-law.
All the three bodies were recovered from near Sadawar river.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he was the first
person to inform the Police after which the Police came. He is10 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )working as a Chowkidar since 19-04-2011.
P.W.6 Raj Muni Mochi is the informant, who has stated
that the incident is of 31-03-2015 at around 12-12:30AM. In his
house, Suresh Bhuiyan, Santosh Bhuiyan, Gana Prajapati, Sujit
Prajapati, Birendra Vishwakarma, Vinay Vishwakarma, Amarik
Vishwakarma and 6-7 persons entered claiming themselves to be
extremists and threatened that if the door is not opened, they
would set ablaze the house. Out of fear, he opened the door at
which the miscreants entered and started assaulting him. They
were saying that since his son had solemnized marriage with the
daughter of Vinay Vishwakarma, he will be taken away by them
and a decision will be made in the Jan Adalat. Apart from him,
his four daughters and son-in-law were present in the house.
When his son Chunmun Kumar, wife Phul Kumari Devi and
daughter-in-law Sonakshi were being taken away by the
accused, it was resisted by the daughters of the informant at
which they were threatened by the accused. He as well all as the
three abducted persons were taken away by them. Sonakshi Devi
was carrying a pregnancy of six months. He had managed to flee
away while the others were taken to the jungle near Sadawar
river. He had hid himself behind the bush and from a distance of
100 feet, he had seen his son, wife and daughter-in-law being
hacked to death by the accused persons. When the accused
persons had fled away, this witness came out from the bushes.
He had informed the Chowkidar after which, the Police reached
Derwa jungle where the dead bodies of all the three persons were
seen lying. The Police had prepared inquest reports in which he
had signed and his signatures have been proved and marked as
Exhibits-1, 2 and 3. He has also identified his signature in the
fardbeyan which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-4. The
reason behind the occurrence is that his son Chunmun Kumar
had solemnized love marriage with the daughter of Vinay
11 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )
Vishwakarma which enraged them and resultantly, the accused
persons had committed the murders.
In cross-examination on behalf of Sujit Prajapati and Gana
Prajapati, he has deposed that no Test Identification Parade was
held. He did not give the name of Sujit Prajapati and Gana
Prajapati since he did not know them. In his restatement also,
he had not taken the name of Sujit Prajapati and Gana Prajapati.
In cross-examination on behalf of Janeshwar and Munarik
Vishwakarma, he has deposed that he knows all the accused
persons since they belong to the same village. Vinay
Vishwakarma had earlier instituted a case against him as his son
had enticed away the minor daughter of Vinay Vishwakarma. The
girl was subsequently recovered and returned back to her father.
When his son came out of jail, he surreptitiously solemnized
marriage with the daughter of Vinay Vishwakarma. The area
where he stays has the presence of extremists. On the date of the
incident, he was in a separate room while his son and daughter-
in-law were sleeping in the middle room. His wife and daughters
were sleeping in another room. When he had opened the door,
the accused persons 6-7 in number and having covered their
faces had entered. He was assaulted with lathi and tangi and was
given 50-60 blows with lathi while he was assaulted with axe on
head. He had got himself treated at Patan Hospital. He was taken
to a distance of about 1 kilometer from his house. Only his hands
were tied. It was a moonlit night. When he had fled away, the
others had chased him for about 100-200 feet. He initially, hid
behind the bush but subsequently he hid himself near the river.
P.W.7 Sakendra Mochi had put his thumb impression on
the inquest report of Chunmun Kumar, Phul Kumari Devi and
Sonakshi Devi.
P.W.8 Dr. John F. Kennedy was posted as a Medical
Officer at Sadar Hospital, Daltonganj and on 31-03-2015, he had
12 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )
conducted autopsy on the dead body of Phul Kumari Devi and
had found the following:
(i) Rigor mortis were found present in all
the four limbs.
(ii) Incised wound 2″ x 1″ on right side of
face near the ear extending deep into
the brain and posteriorly on to neck.
(iii) Incised wound 4″ x 1″ x bone deep on
right occipital parietal region.
(iv) Incised wound 4″ x 1″ x brain deep on
right occipital region.
On dissection:
(i) Muscles and vessels on right side of
face, on right side of neck were incised
and severed along with those on right
occipito parietal region of the skull.
(ii) Fracture of occipital and parietal bones
on the right side along with laceration
of the brain parenchyma in right side of
occipital region were seen.
(iii) Blood and blood clots were present
around all the injuries.
The cause of death was opined to be due to shock
hemorrhage and brain damage on account of the above-
mentioned ante-mortem injuries caused by sharp cutting
weapon.
On the same day, he had conducted autopsy on the dead
body of Chunmun Kumar and had found the following:
(i) Polio in right lower limb, leg and both
thighs.
(ii) Rigor mortis was present in all the four
limbs.
13 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )
Injuries found:
(i) Incised wound 4" x 1" x bone deep
above left ear.
(ii) Incised wound 1" x ½" x muscle deep
below left mandible.
(iii) Incised wound 5" x 1" x bone deep on
right side of face including lips and
teeths.
(iv) Fracture of mandible and maxilla on
right side.
On Dissection:
(i) Muscles and vessels on left side of face
and right side of face were incised and
severed.
(ii) Muscles and vessels below left
mandible were incised and severed.
(iii) Mandible and maxilla on right side
were fractured along with parietal
bone on the left side along with
damage to brain parenchyma in the left
parietal region.
The cause of death was opined to be due to shock
hemorrhage and brain damage on account of the above-
mentioned ante-mortem injuries caused by sharp cutting
weapon.
On the same day, he had conducted autopsy on the dead
body of Smt. Sonakshi Devi and had found the following:
(i) Incised wound on face 8" x 2" x bone
deep extending from left ear to mouth.
(ii) Fracture on Maxillary bone of left side.
(iii) Transversed incised wound on at the
base of neck 3" x 1" x bone deep.
14 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )
(iv) Trachea cut anteriorly.
(v) Transversed incised wound on neck 1″
above injury no. 3, 2″ x ½” x muscle
deep.
(vi) Transversed incised wound on neck 2″
above injury no. 3, 2″ x ½” x muscle
deep.
On Dissection:
Muscles of face were lacerated and cut on
left side. There were compound fracture of
left maxillary bone. Muscles and vessels
were severed and lacerated anteriorly.
Trachea was cut anteriorly. Presence of
blood and blood clots around all injuries
seen.
The cause of death was opined to be due to shock
hemorrhage on account of the ante-mortem injuries caused by
sharp cutting weapon. The post-mortem reports have been
proved and marked as Exhibits-5, 5/1 and 5/2.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that all the injuries
found on the person of the deceased were incised wounds.
P.W.9 Baban Mochi had put his thumb impression on the
seizure of blood-stained earth.
P.W.10 Ravi Pratap Bajpaye was posted as an Officer-in-
charge of Patan P.S. and on 31-03-2015 at 6:00am, he received
information/rumors that three persons of Nageshwar Tola
Harijan have been murdered. He reached the place of occurrence
at around 10:15AM and recorded the fardbeyan of Raj Muni
Mochi. The informant had stated that he along with his family
members were sleeping in their house situated at Nageshwar
Harijan Tola, when at 12 in the night there was a loud knocking
on the main door. The person standing outside identified15 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )themselves as M.C.C. extremists and ordered that if the door is
not opened, they will set it ablaze. They entered into the house
having weapons in their possession and told them to attend the
Jan Adalat. The informant, his son Chunmun Kumar, his
daughter-in-law Sonakshi and his wife Phul Kumari Devi were
assaulted and taken towards Sadawar river. His son, wife and
daughter-in-law were murdered but the informant managed to
flee away. He had identified four persons, namely, Manoj
Chandravanshi, Suresh Bhuiyan, Santosh Bhuiyan and
Birendra Mistry. The informant had disclosed the reason of the
occurrence to be due to the marriage solemnized by his son with
a loharin girl for which threats were given, a case was also
instituted and he had gone to jail. He has identified the fardbeyan
which is in his handwriting and which has been marked as
Exhibit- 4/1. He has identified the endorsement which also is in
his handwriting and which has been marked as Exhibit-4/2.
After registering the First Information Report, he had taken over
investigation of the case. He had prepared separate inquest
reports of Phul Kumari Devi, Chunmun Kumar and Sonakshi
Devi in the presence of Raj Muni Mochi and Sakendra Mochi. The
inquest reports have been marked as Exhibits- 1/1, 2/1 and 3/1.
He had inspected the place of occurrence and had collected the
blood-stained earth and had also sent the same, on the orders of
the Court, to FSL. The seizure list is in his handwriting which
has been prepared in the presence of independent witnesses
Baban Mochi, Raj Muni Mochi and Suraj Kumar in which Baban
had put his thumb impression, while the others had signed. The
seizure list has been marked as Exhibit-5. During investigation,
he had recorded the confessional statement of Manoj
Chandravanshi alias Singha on 31-03-2015 and on the basis of
his confession, he had recovered a blood-stained axe from the
house of Birendra Vishwakarma. The seizure list was prepared
16 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )
in presence of Sita Ram Vishwakarma and Kulmati Devi who had
put their thumb impressions. The seizure list is in his
handwriting and bears his signature and which has been marked
as Exhibit-8. The confessional statement of Manoj
Chandravanshi has been proved and marked as Exhibit-3. The
accused Manoj Chandravanshi had disclosed that Birendra,
Vinay, Suresh Bhuiyan, Santosh Bhuiyan and 3-4 other persons
had committed the murders. He has stated that the first place of
occurrence is Amagarhi Jungle situated at Mauja-Derwa,
Anchal-Perwa. The place is covered on three sides by jungles and
hills, while on one side runs Sadawar river. The mutilated dead
bodies of Phul Kumari Devi, Chunmun Kumar and Sonakshi
Devi were found at a distance of about 200 yards in between
rocks. The second place of occurrence is at Harijan Tola of village
Nageshwar in the tiled house of Raj Muni Mochi. The distance
between this place and the place where the murder was
committed is about 1 kilometer. He had recorded the restatement
of the informant as well as the statements of Urmila Devi, Shobha
Devi, Kusum Kumari, Arjun Ram and Usha Kumari and all had
supported the occurrence. He had arrested Munarik
Vishwakarma, Janeshwar Vishwakarma and Manoj
Chandravanshi. On 09-04-2015, Vinay Vishwakarma had
surrendered in the Court. On 13-04-2015, the axe used in the
murder was produced before the Court for sending it for
examination to FSL.
In cross-examination on behalf of Gana Prajapati and Sujit
Prajapati, he has deposed that Urmila Devi and Shobha Devi had
not taken the name of Gana Prajapati and Sujit Prajapati in their
statements. Kusum Kumari, Usha Kumari, Nand Kumar Paswan
and Raj Muni Mochi had also not taken the name of Gana
Prajapati and Sujit Prajapati in their statements. He had not
conducted the Test Identification Parade of the accused. He had
17 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )
not recovered any materials from the house of Gana Prajapati
and Sujit Prajapati.
In cross-examination on behalf of Munarik and Janeshwar,
he has deposed that Nand Kumar Majhi had given the
information over phone. He had only given information about the
murder and had not disclosed the name of the accused. Nand
Kumar had stated about the place where the incident had taken
place, but he had not disclosed the manner of the occurrence. He
had entered the information in station diary, but the same has
not been mentioned in the case diary. Urmila Devi had taken the
name of Janeshwar Vishwakarma and Munarik Vishwakarma,
but their specific names were not entered in the case diary. In
Para 9, he had recorded the statements of Shobha Devi, but she
had not specifically taken the name of Janeshwar and Munarik.
The statement of the witness Kusum Kumari had been recorded
at Para 10 of the case diary, but she had also not specifically
mentioned about the name of Janeshwar and Munarik. The
witnesses Arjun Ram and Usha Kumari had also not taken the
name of Munarik and Janeshwar. He had recorded the statement
of Raj Muni Mochi at Paragraph 7 of the case diary and he had
not disclosed the name of Munarik and Janeshwar. He had also
not disclosed the name of Sujit and Gana Prajapati.
In cross-examination on behalf of the other accused
persons, he has deposed that the murder weapon was recovered
in his presence from the house of Birendra. There are no
residences in between the first and second place of occurrence.
He had tried to record the statement of the neighbor of Raj Muni
Mochi, but no one came forward.
P.W.11 Arjun Gope has stated that he had sent the seized
articles to F.S.L., Ranchi and after completion of forensic
examination, he had obtained the report. The seized articles
which were sealed was received with the slip of F.S.L., Ranchi
18 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )
pasted on them which contained the identification box mark I
and II. On the order of the Court, the box marked I was opened
and in it were found a big axe, a small axe and an iron khanti
with one end sharp and the other blunt. These were marked as
Material Exhibit Nos. I, II & III. The small box was opened which
enclosed six sealed white envelopes. All the envelopes were
opened before the Court. The envelope marked 2/c(II) was
opened and in it was another small envelope which had crushed
blood-stained earth. The same has been marked as Material
Exhibit-4. The envelope marked 2/A(I) was opened which
enclosed another white-colored envelope and which contained
blood-stained earth. It was marked as Material Exhibit IV/1.
Similarly, on opening the envelope marked 2/A(II) some blood-
stained earth pebbles were found which has been marked as
Material Exhibit IV/2. The envelope marked 2B(I) was opened
and in it was also found blood-stained earth. The same has been
marked as Material Exhibit IV/3. The envelope marked 2/B(II)
was opened and in it was found blood-stained earth, some
pebbles and grass. This was marked as Material Exhibit IV/4.
Similarly, while opening the envelope marked 2/C(I), some blood-
stained earth was found which has been marked as Material
Exhibit No. IV/5. The small wooden box contained a cream-
colored shirt which has been marked as Material Exhibit-V. A
jeans pant wrapped in paper was also found which has been
marked as Material Exhibit V/I. The letter through which the
material exhibits were called for has been marked as Exhibit-10.
In cross-examination, he has stated that in all the material
exhibits, the P.S. case has been mentioned
P.W.12. Arjun Mochi is the son-in-law of Raj Muni Mochi
who has stated that he was at his in-laws’ place when the
incident had occurred. In the night, seven persons had come and
tried to open the door. When the door was not opened, the
19 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )
miscreants identified themselves to be the members of an
extremist organization and threatened that if the door is not
opened, they shall set ablaze the house. The door was thereafter
opened. The miscreants came inside the house and tied the
hands and legs of his father-in-law. The persons who had come
inside the room were Vinay Lohar, Birendra Lohar, Amarik
Lohar, Santosh Bhuiyan, Suresh Bhuiyan as well as the other
persons who could not be identified. He identified those two
persons in the dock as Sujit Prajapati and Gana Prajapati. His
father-in-law was taken outside and he was subjected to assault.
When they tried to raise alarm, they were also assaulted. The
miscreants had taken away his brother-in-law, Chunmun
Kumar, his wife Sonakshi Devi and mother-in-law Phul Kumari
Devi. Later on, an information was received that all the three
were hacked to death. The reason for the occurrence is that the
daughter of Vinay, Sonakshi had solemnized marriage with his
brother-in-law Chunmun, which was objected to by Vinay and
others.
In cross-examination on behalf of Munarik Vishwakarma
and Janeshwar Vishwakarma, he has deposed that at the time
of the occurrence, he had not seen Munarik and Janeshwar. He
was sleeping with his wife and her sisters and he had not seen
these persons. These two persons do not have any role in the
murders.
In cross-examination on behalf of Sujit Prajapati and Gana
Prajapati, he has deposed that in the night when the incident
had taken place it was not dark, but was a moonlit night. The
incident is of two days after Chaitra Navami Pooja. The accused
persons had come with their faces covered with Gamcha. The
Police had not conducted any Test Identification Parade. He did
not know Sujit and Gana from before, but had seen them on the
date of occurrence.
20 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )
In cross-examination on behalf of the other accused
persons, he has deposed that he had disclosed to the Police that
all the accused had their faces covered. About ten miscreants
had come, but he had seen only seven of them.
P.W.13 Amit Kumar had taken over investigation from the
earlier Investigating Officer after which he had recorded the
confessional statement of Santosh Bhuiyan which is in his
handwriting and bears his signature and which has been marked
as Exhibit-11. On the basis of such confession, a jeans pant and
a blood-stained yellow shirt kept hidden underneath a stone in
the jungle near Sadawar river were recovered and a seizure list
was prepared in which Nand Kishore Paswan and Jugal Kishore
Majhi had signed and which has been marked as Exhibit-12. He
had obtained the post-mortem report of Phul Kumari Devi,
Chunmun Kumar and Sonakshi Devi. He had submitted charge
sheet against Santosh Bhuiyan, Gana Prajapati, Sujit Prajapati,
Munarik Vishwakarma, Janeshwar Vishwakarma, Manoj
Chandravanshi and Vinay Vishwakarma under Section 364,
302/120B/109/34 IPC vide Charge Sheet No. 56/15. The
investigation was kept pending against Suresh Bhuiyan,
Birendra Vishwakarma and Amarik Vishwakarma.
In cross-examination on behalf of Munarik Vishwakarma
and Janeshwar Vishwakarma, he has stated that he had not
inspected the place of occurrence. He had not entered the
statement of the seizure list witnesses Nand Kumar Paswan and
Jugal Kishore Majhi in the case diary. The seized articles have
been kept in the Malkhana, but the same has not been
mentioned in the case diary.
In cross-examination on behalf of Sujit Prajapati and Gana
Prajapati, he has deposed that they were arrested from their
house but nothing was recovered from them.
5. The statements of the accused were recorded under Section
21 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )
313 Cr.P.C. in which they have denied about their involvement
in the commission of the murders.
6. The defence has examined two witnesses:
D.W.1 Surendra Singh alias Surajdev Singh has stated
that the extremists had killed those three persons. He had seen
about 35 to 40 extremists. On the date of occurrence, the two
daughters of Raj Muni Mochi and his son-in-law were not present
in the house.
D.W.2 Kameshwar Singh has stated that the murders of
Chunmun Kumar, Phul Kumari Devi and Sonakshi Devi were
committed by outsiders. He had heard that extremists had come.
The accused who were present are not involved in the offence.
7. It has been submitted by Mr. A.S. Dayal, learned counsel
for the appellant, Manoj Chandravanshi in Criminal Appeal (DB)
No. 1390 of 2017 that the First Information Report was instituted
against eight named persons, including the appellant. It has been
submitted that P.W.1 has deposed that the faces of all the
intruders were covered and that it was a dark night which has
been corroborated by P.W.2. In fact, the same contradicts the
narration made in the First Information Report, though P.W.6,
the informant has also supported the fact regarding the
miscreants covering their faces. Mr. Dayal has drawn the
attention of the Court to the evidence of P.W.3, who is a daughter
of the informant and who has given a different version to the
effect that the faces of the intruders were not covered and it was
a moonlit night. Mr. Dayal has referred to the evidence of P.W.4,
who apart from stating that the miscreants had come with their
faces covered, has not named Manoj Chandravanshi as one of
the miscreants. She has stated about informing about the
murder to Sarju Bhuiyan, Radhuna Bhuiyan and Kishun
Bhuiyan, but none of the said persons were examined. The
informant (P.W.6) has also not stated about the name of Manoj
22 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )
Chandravanshi, though he has taken the name of several other
accused. Mr. Dayal submits that the identity of the accused
persons including the appellant is doubtful as according to the
First Information Report as well as the evidence of the
eyewitnesses barring P.W.3, they had covered their faces and it
was a dark night and according to one witness it was raining.
When there is a doubt regarding the identification, Test
Identification Parade should have been held. So far as the
manner of occurrence is concerned, it has been submitted that
the informant had disclosed that he was also abducted along
with his wife, son and daughter-in-law, but the other witnesses
have stated that he had escaped after the assault. According to
Mr. Dayal, the informant has deposed that the accused persons
had forcibly opened the door while the other eyewitnesses have
stated about the accused persons scaling the wall and then
opening the door. The false implication of the appellant is
apparent from the fact that though he is named in the First
Information Report, but P.W.4 and P.W.6 have not named him.
It has been submitted that Gana Prajapati and Sujit Prajapati
were not named in either the First Information Report or by the
witnesses which indicates their false implication and such false
implication would automatically percolate down to the other
accused persons as the falsity of the prosecution case in its
entirety becomes obvious. The investigation carried out was
grossly inadequate, as even inspite of the informant (P.W.6)
stating about the miscreants being extremists, the Investigating
Officer had not investigated on this angle. The investigation had
been kept pending against three accused persons, including an
accused from whom recovery was effected but in haste, the
Investigating Officer had submitted charge sheet against the
other accused persons, including the present appellants. The
seizure list witnesses have not been examined thereby diluting
23 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )
the seizure of the blood-stained tangi which was recovered on the
confessional statement of the appellant Manoj Chandravanshi.
Mr. Dayal has submitted that though the informant (P.W.6) was
brutally assaulted by the intruders as per his own version, but
the prosecution has failed to produce any injury report which
clearly indicates that P.W.6 was not present when the incident
had taken place. While referring to Exhibit-6, Mr. Dayal submits
that blood could not be detected in Exhibit-1A, 1B and 1C and,
therefore, the confession of the appellant Manoj Chandravanshi
and the purported recovery on account of such confession
becomes redundant. In fact, according to Mr. Dayal the
confessional statement of the appellant Manoj Chandravanshi
does not disclose about any weapons and the prosecution has
failed to explain as to on what basis the recovery had been
effected. He concludes by submitting that the incongruities and
contradictions in the prosecution case is writ large and,
therefore, the benefit of doubt should be extended to the
appellant Manoj Chandravanshi.
8. Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of Sujit Prajapati and Gana Prajapati in Criminal Appeal
(DB) No. 1413 of 2017 has submitted that these appellants were
not named in the First Information Report and even in the
evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.6, their names have not
surfaced and so far as P.W.12 is concerned, he had identified
both the appellants in the dock. According to Mr. Tripathi, the
only dissenting voice seems to have come from P.W.3, who had
named the appellants as being amongst the miscreants who had
entered into the house but as per the evidence of P.W.10, Kusum
Kumari (P.W.3) had not taken the name of these appellants in
her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It has been
submitted that without any basis, the appellants have been
convicted.
24 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )
9. Mr. B.K. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant Santosh Bhuiyan in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1433 of
2017 has commenced his argument by submitting that the
informant has stated about narrating the entire story to the
Chowkidar, who in turn, informed the Police at 10:00AM, but the
Chowkidar Nand Kumar Paswan (P.W.5) had not taken the name
of any person from which a conclusion can be derived that the
informant had not disclosed the name of any of the miscreants
to P.W.5. It has been submitted that appellant Santosh Bhuiyan
did not have any motive for participating in the offence. It has
also been submitted that the appellant is of a different village and
there is nothing to show that he was known to the informant from
before. Mr. Dubey has strenuously argued that though as per the
FIR, all the assailants have assaulted with tangi, but no
bloodstains were found in the house. In fact, the Investigating
Officer did not even find any broken door. All the eyewitnesses
are interested witnesses since they all are related to the
deceased. None of the witnesses raised any alarm when the
incident had taken place and no neighbours had come which
appears to be shocking considering the magnitude of the offence
and the number of persons involved in the commission of such
offence. Mr. Dubey has further added that the elementary version
of the first information cannot be taken to be the gospel truth.
The name of the accused person seems to have been included as
an afterthought as most of the eyewitnesses had disclosed that
the miscreants had covered their faces. While drawing the
attention of the Court to the evidence of P.W.10 (I.O.), it has been
submitted that P.W.10 had heard a rumor about the incident at
6:00AM on 31-03-2015 which is contrary to the evidence of the
Chowkidar (P.W.5) and according to P.W.10, P.W.5 had not taken
the name of any of the assailants. So far as the recovery is
concerned, according to Mr. Dubey, the parameters laid down
25 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )
under Section 27 Arms Act have not been fulfilled. It has nowhere
come in the evidence of the witnesses that the appellant was
armed when the assailants had transgressed into the house of
the informant. It has thus been submitted that the appellant
Santosh Bhuiyan deserves the benefit of doubt.
10. Mr. Shiv Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellants in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1500 of 2017 has
commenced his submission by narrating the First Information
Report which according to him does not speak of the appellants
having abducted the wife, son and daughter-in-law of the
informant. The First Information Report merely reveals about a
threat meted out to the informant by the appellants and others
as a consequence of Chunmun Kumar eloping with Sonakshi and
solemnising marriage with her. It has been submitted that the
name of the appellants has been revealed for the first time in
Court by P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4. This fact, according to Mr.
Singh, would be evident from the testimony of P.W.10 (I.O). It has
been submitted that P.W.6 (informant) and P.W.12 who were also
the eyewitnesses to the first occurrence have not named the
appellants in their evidence. The name of the appellants were
also not taken by the co-convict Manoj Chandravanshi and
Santosh Bhuiyan with respect to the abduction and subsequent
murder of the wife, son and daughter-in-law of the informant as
would appear from their confessional statements marked
Exhibit-9 and 11 respectively. Section 120B is not at all attracted
since there is no evidence on record indicating the appellants of
being conspirators. Mr. Singh has referred to the cases of Pritam
Nath & Ors. v. State of Punjab reported in (2002) 6 SCC 321
and State represented by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu v.
Sait alias Krishna Kumar reported in (2008) 15 SCC 440.
11. Mr. Manoj Kumar Choubey, learned counsel for the
appellants in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1937 of 2017 has referred
26 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )
to the evidence of P.W.1 as well as P.W.10 while submitting that
the manner of entry of the assailants in the house of P.W.6 does
not correlate as both have given different versions. While P.W.1
has deposed that they had entered inside the house by climbing
the wall and opening the door from inside, P.W.10 has, on the
other hand, stated that no such version was disclosed to him by
P.W.1; rather it was the father of P.W.1 who had opened the door.
Mr. Choubey has also referred to the evidence of P.W.13 who had
taken over investigation from the earlier Investigating Officer and
whose statement with respect to recovery on the confession of
Santosh Bhuiyan appears to be contradictory. As on one hand,
he has stated about not inspecting the place of occurrence and
not entering the statement of the seizure list witnesses in the
diary, while on the other hand, P.W.13 has stated about recovery
of cloth from the place of occurrence on the confession of Santosh
Bhuiyan. It has been submitted that P.W.10 on receiving
information about the murders through telephone had made a
station diary entry, but the same was not entered in the case
diary. This fact has been corroborated by P.W.5. The First
Information Report according to Mr. Choubey is the second first
information report if the evidence of P.W.10 is taken into
consideration. He has submitted that the appellant has falsely
been implicated on account of previous enmity. Learned counsel
has referred to Para 24 of the trial court judgment and has
submitted that the learned trial court has assumed the murders
to be honour killings without there being any semblance of truth
in the same. All the evidences put forward by the prosecution are
inconclusive in nature. He has submitted that the FSL report has
also been proved to be inconclusive. Mr. Choubey has referred to
the case of Kapildeo Mandal & Ors. v. State of Bihar reported
in (2008) 16 SCC 99 and the relevant is quoted hereinunder:
“15. The credibility of a witness cannot
27 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )
be judged merely on the basis of his close
relation with the deceased and as such
cannot be a ground to discard his testimony,
if it otherwise inspires confidence and,
particularly so, when it is corroborated by
the evidence of independent and injured
witnesses. Speaking for a five-Judge Bench
in a celebrated judgment viz. Masalti v. State
of U.P.1, P.B. Gajendragadkar, C.J. said:
(AIR pp. 209-10, para 14)
“14. … There is no doubt that
when a criminal court has to appreciate
evidence given by witnesses who are
partisan or interested, it has to be very
careful in weighing such evidence.
Whether or not there are discrepancies
in the evidence; whether or not
evidence strikes the Court as genuine;
whether or not the story disclosed by
the evidence is probable, are all
matters which must be taken into
account. But it would, we think, be
unreasonable to contend that evidence
given by witnesses should be
discarded only on the ground that it is
evidence of partisan or interested
witnesses. Often enough, where
factions prevail in villages and
murders are committed as a result of
enmity between such factions, criminal
courts have to deal with evidence of a
partisan type. The mechanical rejection
28 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )
of such evidence on the sole ground
that it is partisan would invariably
lead to failure of justice. No hard-and-
fast rule can be laid down as to how
much evidence should be appreciated.
Judicial approach has to be cautious in
dealing with such evidence; but the
plea that such evidence should be
rejected because it is partisan cannot
be accepted as correct.”
16. In Nallabothu Venkaiah v. State of
A.P. this Court held: (SCC p. 125, para 13)
“13. … The test, in such
circumstances, as correctly adopted by
the trial court, is that if the witnesses
are interested, the same must be
scrutinised with due care and caution
in the light of the medical evidence and
other surrounding circumstances.
Animosity is a double-edged sword
and it can cut both sides. It can be a
ground for false implication. It can also
be a ground for assault.”
17. In Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhu
Nath Jha, this Court held: (SCC p. 613, para
15)
“15. … But at the same time, if the
relatives or interested witnesses are
examined, the court has a duty to
analyse the evidence with deeper
scrutiny and then come to a conclusion
29 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )
as to whether it has a ring of truth or
there is reason for holding that the
evidence was biased. Whenever a plea
is taken that the witness is partisan or
had any hostility towards the accused,
foundation for the same has to be laid.”
18. In State of H.P. v. Mast Ram this
Court said: (AIR p. 665, para 11)
“11. … The law on the point is
well settled that the testimony of
relative witnesses cannot be
disbelieved on the ground of
relationship. The only requirement is to
examine their testimony with caution.
… Their testimony was thrown out at
the threshold on the ground of
animosity and relationship. This is not
the requirement of the law.”
12. Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned Spl. P.P. appearing in
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1390 of 2017 and Criminal Appeal (DB)
No. 1500 of 2017 has submitted that the manner of occurrence
has been disclosed by Santosh Bhuiyan. He has admitted that
there was a dissatisfaction due to the girl marrying a boy of lower
caste which in fact fuelled the murders. Mr. Ojha has submitted
that P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.6 have clearly disclosed
the name of the appellant as amongst the accused who had
abducted the wife, son and daughter-in-law of the informant. The
identification of the miscreants were absolutely possible since it
was a moonlit night as disclosed by P.W.3 and P.W.12 apart from
the fact that the accused persons including the appellant were
known to the witnesses from before. So far as non-examination
of independent witnesses are concerned, he had taken pains to
30 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )
record their statements, but all such witnesses have avoided in
getting their statements recorded. Mr. Ojha has pointed out that
the clothes of the appellant Santosh Bhuiyan were recovered
from under a big stone on his confession and the seizure list was
exhibited without any objection. In fact, all the exhibits were
marked without objection. Mr. Ojha further adds that P.W.6 had
seen the occurrence and the manner of assault has been proved
by virtue of the findings recorded in the post-mortem report.
13. Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned, A.P.P. appearing in Criminal
Appeal (DB) No. 1413 of 2017 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1937
of 2017 has submitted that all the witnesses have consistently
stated about the involvement of these appellants in the
commission of the murders. She has referred to Section 30
Evidence Act and has submitted that the confessional statement
can be read with respect to the involvement of the other accused
persons.
14. Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned Special P.P. in Criminal Appeal
(DB) No. 1433 of 2017 has submitted that there are three
categories of witnesses adduced by the prosecution and all the
categories when added up, invariably points to the guilt of all the
appellants. Mr. Ravi Prakash has referred to the evidence of
P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.12 and has stated that all
the witnesses have been consistent regarding the entering of the
assailants inside the house and taking away all the three
persons. He has submitted that the close proximity of time
between the abduction and the recovery of dead bodies
comprehensively indicates about the involvement of the
appellants. Some contradictions, though has surfaced in the
evidence of the witnesses, but the same are trivial in nature
which in no way dilutes the case of the prosecution. The defence
has failed to cross examine P.W.6 on the point of contradiction.
The First Information Report is not a substantive piece of
31 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )
evidence and can only be used for the purposes of corroboration.
It has been submitted that the present appellant is named as
such there was no question of conducting a Test Identification
Parade. So far as motive is concerned, Mr. Ravi Prakash has
submitted that the evidence of the witnesses in very clear terms
has stated about the reason for the murders. He has referred to
the case of State of U.P. v. Krishna Master reported in
(2010) 12 SCC 324 and Raju Manjhi v. State of Bihar reported
in (2018) ACR 706.
15. We have given our anxious consideration to the
submissions advanced by the respective counsels and have also
perused the trial court records.
16. Though the allegations of abduction and murder are the
same with respect to all the appellants, but since the degree of
proof, identification of the assailants and the stages in which
their names have surfaced are at variance to each other we would
accordingly deal with the same separately.
17. In Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1413 of 2017, the appellants
are Sujit Prajapati and Gana Prajapati. These appellants were not
named in the First Information Report as the persons who had
abducted the wife, son and daughter-in-law of the informant and
they have also not been attributed to have issued threats to the
informant as a consequence of the son of the informant eloping
with the daughter of Vinay Vishwakarma and solemnizing
marriage with her. Their names had surfaced on the confessional
statement of Santosh Bhuiyan. In course of trial, although P.W.1,
P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.12 have not named these appellants but
they were identified in the dock. P.W.6 has stated that he did not
know the name of these appellants and, therefore, he had not
named them in the First Information Report. Even in the
restatement of P.W.6, he had not taken the name of these
appellants. The lone dissenting voice seems to have come from
32 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )
P.W.3, who has named the appellants in her evidence.
Interestingly, P.W.10 (I.O.) in his evidence has stated that none
of the witnesses had taken the name of the appellants in their
statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the same
includes Kusum Kumari (P.W.3) as well. No incriminating
articles were recovered from the possession of the appellants. The
only aspect which is to be considered therefore, is with respect
to the identification of the appellants. It is an admitted fact that
no Test Identification Parade was held which, in the
circumstances of the case of these appellants, would have been
an essential ingredient in invigorating the case of the
prosecution. However, at the same time, we have to consider the
evidentiary value of identification in the dock by a witness of an
accused and as to whether such identification in the dock would
be sufficient to bring home the guilt of these appellants.
18. In the case of Sheo Shankar Singh v. State of
Jharkhand reported in (2011) 3 SCC 654, it has been held as
follows:
“46. It is fairly well settled that
identification of the accused in the court by
the witness constitutes the substantive
evidence in a case although any such
identification for the first time at the trial
may more often than not appear to be
evidence of a weak character. That being so
a test identification parade is conducted
with a view to strengthening the
trustworthiness of the evidence. Such a TIP
then provides corroboration to the witness in
the court who claims to identify the accused
persons otherwise unknown to him. Test
identification parades, therefore, remain in33 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )the realm of investigation.
47. The Code of Criminal Procedure
does not oblige the investigating agency to
necessarily hold a test identification parade
nor is there any provision under which the
accused may claim a right to the holding of
a test identification parade. The failure of the
investigating agency to hold a test
identification parade does not, in that view,
have the effect of weakening the evidence of
identification in the court. As to what should
be the weight attached to such an
identification is a matter which the court will
determine in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of each case. In appropriate
cases the court may accept the evidence of
identification in the court even without
insisting on corroboration.”
19. In the present case so far as the appellants are concerned,
the corroborative evidence has to be sourced out from the
evidence on record. P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.12 have all
stated about two unknown persons along with the named
persons who had barged into the house of P.W.6. They were not
knowing the names of those two persons but had identified them
in the dock as the appellants. The evidence of P.W.10 goes to
show that P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4, P.W.6 and P.W.12 had not taken
the name of the appellants which, therefore, indicates that these
witnesses have not deviated from their statements recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. so far as they not knowing the
appellants is concerned. Only P.W.3 seems to have improved her
version as she is the only eyewitness who had named these
appellants. P.W.3 again appears to be the lone dissenting voice
34 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )
as it was she, who had deposed that none of the accused had
covered their faces. Her evidence that it was a moonlit night
however, seems to have been corroborated by P.W.6 and P.W.12,
though P.W.1 and P.W.2 have stated that it was a dark night.
P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4, P.W.6 and P.W.12 have stated that the
miscreants had entered with their faces covered. Both these
appellants were unknown faces to the witnesses and had covered
their faces and their identification in the dock for the first time is
tainted with doubt. There is no other material collected by P.W.10
which would indict the appellants. The prosecution has also
failed to bring on record any substance which would indicate that
the appellants were teeming with any motive for committing such
horrendous crime. The benefit of doubt, therefore, has to be
extended to the appellants.
20. In Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1500 of 2017, the appellants
are Munarik Vishwakarma and Janeshwar Vishwakarma who
are named in the First Information Report as the persons who
had given threats to the informant as his son had married a
loharin girl. However, in course of trial, they have been named
by P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4, though P.W.6 and P.W.12
have not named them. When the attention of P.W.10 was drawn
to the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the
eyewitnesses, he had deposed that none of the said witnesses
had specifically taken the name of these appellants. It would,
therefore, appear that P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 for the first
time in course of trial has named these appellants and have also
identified them in the dock. We may once again refer to the case
of Sheo Shankar Singh v. State of Jharkhand (supra),
wherein it had been held that though identification in the dock
is a substantive piece of evidence, but in absence of any
corroborative evidence, the strength of such evidence gets
weakened. There does not appear to be any corroborative
35 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )
evidence and even in the confessional statements (Exhibits-9 and
11), the names of these appellants do not figure. The additional
feature to which our attention has been drawn is the evidence of
P.W.6 (informant). If we visualize the scenario, as depicted by
P.W.6, it appears that P.W.6 was the first person to have seen
the miscreants and he also seemed to be in a position to witness
the countenance of all the miscreants though their faces were
covered. Though there are certain improvements made in the
evidence of P.W.6, but so far as the present appellants are
concerned, he has not taken their names as the persons who had
forcibly entered his house. Another eyewitness P.W.12, in his
cross-examination, has categorically stated that he had not seen
these appellants at the time of the incident. He was sleeping
along with his wife and her sister, but none of them had seen
them. Both the appellants are related to his in-laws and,
therefore, he knew them from before. This relationship has been
admitted by the other eyewitnesses. No motive also seems to have
been attributed to these appellants. The identity of these
appellants in the background facts and circumstances of the
case is, therefore, tainted with doubt and for which the benefit of
doubt has to be extended to these appellants. Learned counsel
for the appellants as referred to the case of State represented
by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu v. Sait alias Krishna
Kumar reported in (2008) 15 SCC 440 wherein consideration
was made to the credibility of the witness who had developed his
version during trial and it was held as follows:
“7. The residual question was the
reliability of the evidence tendered by PW 8.
Here again, the High Court found that his
version lacked credence. He claimed to be a
person who had seen the accused after some
time of the incident with a bloodstained
36 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )
knife. But his conduct was found to be
unnatural. If he was the only person to have
seen the accused from close quarters, it was
not explained why he did not say so during
investigation. Such a version for the first time
in the Court has been rightly discarded by
the High Court. Therefore, the High Court
directed acquittal, as noted above.”
Thus, on consideration of the aforesaid facts, we come to a
conclusion that the learned trial court had committed an error in
convicting the appellants Munarik Vishwakarma and Janeshwar
Vishwakarma in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1500 of 2017 and
accordingly, the said appeal is allowed.
21. We now take up the rest of the appeals being Criminal
Appeal (DB) No. 1390 of 2017 preferred by Manoj
Chandravanshi, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1433 of 2017 preferred
by Santosh Bhuiyan and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1937 of 2017
preferred by Vinay Vishwakarma. All these appellants have been
sentenced to death by the learned trial court on the premise that
they have committed the murder of three persons which was an
honour killing. All these appellants barring appellant Vinay
Vishwakarma have been named in the First Information Report
as the persons who had barged into the house of the informant
and had taken away the wife, son and daughter-in-law of the
informant. So far as the appellant Vinay Vishwakarma (Criminal
Appeal (DB) No. 1937/17) is concerned, one of the deceased was
his own daughter and the other was his son-in-law. The
precursor to the incident was the son of the Vinay Vishwakarma,
namely, Chunmun Kumar eloping with the daughter of Vinay
Vishwakarma, namely, Sonakshi Devi and solemnising marriage
in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4,
P.W.6 and P.W.12 have consistently stated in their evidence that
37 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )
all these appellants had forcibly taken away Chunmun Kumar,
Sonakshi Devi and Phul Kumari Devi and in the morning, their
dead bodies were found in a mutilated condition, though P.W.4,
P.W.6 and P.W.12 have not taken the name of the appellant
Manoj Chandravanshi. The incident is in two parts; the first
occurred in the house of the informant, while the second is
ostensibly at Derwa Jungle. The first part of the incident has
been witnessed by the inmates of the house, while the second
part relating to the murders was witnessed by P.W.6, though in
his cross-examination, he has deposed that he had managed to
flee away from the clutches of the miscreants and hid himself
besides a river. The evidence of P.W.6 that he was also being
taken away by the miscreants along with the deceased persons
when he managed to flee away seems to have been contradicted
by P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 who have stated that P.W.6 had
managed to flee away from the house itself. P.W.6 though had
named the appellant Manoj Chandravanshi in the First
Information Report, but in his evidence, he has not taken his
name. P.W.4 has also not taken the name of the appellant Manoj
Chandravanshi. The evidence of P.W.6 is not free from doubt as
although he has stated that he was brutally assaulted by the
miscreants but no injury report has been produced by the
prosecution. The evidence of P.W.6 though has more or less
stuck to the narration made in the First Information Report, but
at times appears to have exaggerated the entire occurrence. The
other incriminating factor seems to be the confessional statement
of Manoj Chandravanshi (Exhibit-9) and as per the testimony of
the Investigating Officer (P.W.10) two blood-stained tangis and
one iron rod were recovered from the house of Birendra
Vishwakarma on the basis of such confession. The confessional
statement of Manoj Chandravanshi is marked as Exhibit-9 and
on perusal of the same, there does not appear to be any
38 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )
disclosure made relating to tangi and iron rod. He seems to have
criminated Santosh Bhuiyan and Birendra as well as Vinay,
though on the basis of suspicion. Even otherwise, the FSL report
(Exhibit-6) indicates that in the two tangis and one iron rod (1A,
1B and 1C), no distinct stains were found and it was concluded
that blood could not be detected in 1A, 1B and 1C. Therefore, the
circumstances which have led to the indictment of the appellant
is his confessional statement and the evidence of P.W.1 P.W.2
and P.W.3. As we have noted above, the confessional statement
of appellant Manoj Chandravanshi does not speak of he being
aware of any weapons used in the murders and even if we
assume that the recovery of two tangis and an iron rod were
effected on his confession, the same also cannot be said to be a
clinching piece of evidence in view of the F.S.L. report (Exhibit-
6). The confessional statement of Santosh Bhuiyan revealed that
the blood-stained trouser and shirt of appellant Manoj
Chandravanshi were hidden beneath a stone which was
subsequently recovered by the Police, but the confessional
statement of Manoj Chandravanshi does not indicate about the
clothes or the fact that he had witnessed the murders. Therefore,
the confessional statement of Santosh Bhuiyan cannot be said to
be inculpatory in nature so far as the appellant Manoj
Chandravanshi is concerned. So far as the witnesses are
concerned, their evidence are at variance to each other as though
P.W.1 P.W.2 and P.W.3 have named them, but P.W.4 P.W.6 and
P.W.12 seems not to have taken their names though all these
witnesses claim themselves to be the eyewitnesses. Out of the
three witnesses who have named the appellant Manoj
Chandravanshi, P.W.1 and P.W.2 have stated that it was a dark
night and the intruders had their faces covered which, however,
has been contradicted by P.W.3. Therefore, in absence of any
corroborative material, the conviction of the appellant Manoj
39 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )
Chandravanshi in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1390 of 2017
cannot be sustained. The said appeal, accordingly, stands
allowed.
22. The name of the appellant Santosh Bhuiyan (Criminal
Appeal (DB) number 1433 of 2017) and Vinay Vishwakarma
(Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1937 of 2017) seems to have been
consistently stated by the witnesses P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4,
P.W.6 and P.W.12. Though certain incongruities in the evidence
of the witnesses have been highlighted by Mr. B.K. Dubey and
Mr. Manoj Kumar Choubey, learned counsels regarding the
manner of entry of the miscreants in the house of P.W.6, non-
disclosure of the name of the intruders by the chowkidar (P.W.5),
witnesses being related to the deceased being interested
witnesses, their evidence being tainted with doubt and the
confessional statement of appellant Santosh Bhuiyan which
cannot be relied upon, but such factors do not seem to be of
much assistance to these appellants. The case of the appellants
in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1413 of 2017, Criminal Appeal (DB)
No. 1500 of 2017 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1390 of 2017 are
on different footing to that of the present appellants. As stated
above, P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.6 and P.W.12 have taken
the name of both these appellants in their evidence, though
P.W.6 in the First Information Report had taken the name of
Santosh Bhuiyan as one of the intruders and had taken the name
of the appellant Vinay Vishwakarma as having issued threats to
him. Both these appellants along with others had entered into
the house of P.W.6 and had forcibly taken away the wife, son and
daughter-in-law of P.W.6 and on the next morning, their dead
bodies were recovered. The genesis of the occurrence was the love
affair between the son of P.W.6, Chunmun Kumar and the
daughter of the appellant Vinay Vishwakarma, Sonakshi Devi
and their consequent marriage. Earlier also, a case was
40 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )
instituted against the informant and his family members on
account of his son eloping with the daughter of the appellant
Vinay Vishwakarma for which the informant and his family
members had gone to jail. From the evidence of the eyewitnesses,
it is clear that P.W.6 was also targeted but he somehow managed
to escape though such providence was not bestowed upon the
other three victims. Appellant Vinay Vishwakarma being enraged
with such inter-caste marriage, had earlier given threats to P.W.6
which would manifest from the First Information Report itself.
His participation in the abduction has been clearly established
by the prosecution and so far as the murders are concerned,
since it appears to have been committed immediately after the
abduction, clear inference can be drawn regarding his act of
involvement in the said murders. All the murders were proximate
to the time of abduction. The appellant Santosh Bhuiyan has
been named in the First Information Report and all the
eyewitnesses have supported his involvement. An additional
feature in this case appears to be his confessional statement
(Exhibit-11) which led to discovery of a jeans pant and a yellow
shirt, both blood-stained, recovered from underneath a stone in
the jungle near Sadawar river. The blood-stained jeans pant and
the shirt were sent to S.F.S.L. for forensic examination and as
per Exhibit-6 and 6/1, blood of human origin were detected on
the same. The earth mixed with pebbles and herbs and which
contained stones were also tested and human blood of group B
were found on them. The shirt which was marked Exhibit-3B also
had blood of same origin and was of group B which would thus
indicate that the blood spilled from the victim(s) matched with
the blood detected in the shirt and trouser recovered on the
confession of the appellant Santosh Bhuiyan. It has thus been
established beyond any reasonable doubt that the appellants
Vinay Vishwakarma and Santosh Bhuiyan were responsible for
41 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )
the dastardly act of murder of Chunmun Kumar, Sonakshi Devi
and Phul Kumari Devi and, therefore, their conviction by the
learned trial court under Section 302/149, 364/149 and 120(B)
IPC is hereby upheld.
23. Both the appellants Vinay Vishwakarma and Santosh
Bhuiyan have been sentenced to death by the learned trial court.
We have now to consider as to whether the sentence imposed
upon them is just and proper.
24. So far as the case of Vinay Vishwakarma is concerned, he
appears to have acted as a conspirator, instigator and the
executor of such devious plan. In a fast-changing society, some
pockets of it are still obsessed with medieval thinking to save
their so-called “honour” in the society. A person marrying outside
his/her caste or having a relationship beyond the limits
demarcated by the society, according to such self-proclaimed
preservers of the society, brings disrepute to the families and to
regain their honour, implications follow.
25. In Lata Singh v. State of UP & Anr. reported in (2006)
05 SCC 475, it was held as follows:
“17. The caste system is a curse on the
nation and the sooner it is destroyed the
better. In fact, it is dividing the nation at a
time when We have to be united to face the
challenges before the nation unitedly.
Hence, inter-caste marriages are in fact in
the national interest as they will result in
destroying the caste system. However,
disturbing news are coming from several
parts of the country that young men and
women who undergo inter-caste marriage,
are threatened with violence, or violence is
actually committed on them. In our opinion,42 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )such acts of violence or threats or
harassment are wholly illegal and those
who commit them must be severely
punished. This is a free and democratic
country, and once a person becomes a major
he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes.
If the parents of the boy or girl do not
approve of such inter-caste or inter-religious
marriage the maximum they can do is that
they can cut-off social relations with the son
or the daughter, but they cannot give threats
or commit or instigate acts of violence and
cannot harass the person who undergoes
such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage.
We, therefore, direct that the
administration/police authorities throughout
the country will see to it that if any boy or
girl who is a major undergoes inter-caste or
inter-religious marriage with a woman or
man who is a major, the couple is not
harassed by anyone nor subjected to threats
or acts of violence, and anyone who gives
such threats or harasses or commits acts of
violence either himself or at his instigation,
is taken to task by instituting criminal
proceedings by the police against such
persons and further stern action is taken
against such persons as provided by law.”
26. In Bhagwan Das v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in
(2011) 6 SCC 396, the appellant was convicted for having
strangulated his daughter with an electric wire since she had left
with her husband and was living in an incestuous relationship
43 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )
with her uncle. It was observed therein as follows:
“9. Many people feel that they are
dishonoured by the behaviour of the young
man/woman, who is related to them or
belonging to their caste because he/she is
marrying against their wish or having an
affair with someone, and hence they take
the law into their own hands and kill or
physically assault such person or commit
some other atrocities on them. We have held
in Lata Singh v. State of U.P. that this is
wholly illegal. If someone is not happy with
the behaviour of his daughter or other
person, who is his relation or of his caste, the
maximum he can do is to cut off social
relations with her/him, but he cannot take
the law into his own hands by committing
violence or giving threats of violence.”
While dismissing the appeal, it was observed as follows:
“28. Before parting with this case we
would like to state that “honour” killings
have become commonplace in many parts of
the country, particularly in Haryana,
western Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan. Often
young couples who fall in love have to seek
shelter in the police lines or protection
homes, to avoid the wrath of kangaroo
courts. We have held in Lata Singh case
that there is nothing “honourable” in
“honour” killings, and they are nothing but
barbaric and brutal murders by bigoted
44 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )
persons with feudal minds. In our opinion
honour killings, for whatever reason, come
within the category of the rarest of rare
cases deserving death punishment. It is time
to stamp out these barbaric, feudal practices
which are a slur on our nation. This is
necessary as a deterrent for such
outrageous, uncivilised behaviour. All
persons who are planning to perpetrate
“honour” killings should know that the
gallows await them.”
27. In the case of Dilip Premnarayan Tiwari & Anr. v. State
of Maharashtra reported in (2010) 01 SCC 775 which also was
a case of honour killing and the death sentence imposed by the
learned trial court was confirmed by the High Court and the
Hon’ble Supreme Court modified the sentence by imposing
imprisonment for a specified term, it was held therein as follows:
“67. In a death sentence matter, it is
not only the nature of the crime but the
background of the criminal, his psychology,
his social conditions and his mindset for
committing the offence are also relevant. No
doubt in Ravji v. State of Rajasthan this
Court held as under: (SCC p. 187, para 24)
“24. … The crimes had been
committed with utmost cruelty and
brutality without any provocation, in a
calculated manner. It is the nature and
gravity of the crime but not the
criminal, which are germane for
consideration of appropriate
punishment in a criminal trial. The45 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )Court will be failing in its duty if
appropriate punishment is not
awarded for a crime which has been
committed not only against the
individual victim but also against the
society to which the criminal and victim
belong. The punishment to be awarded
for a crime must not be irrelevant but it
should conform to and be consistent
with the atrocity and brutality with
which the crime has been perpetrated,
the enormity of the crime warranting
public abhorrence and it should
‘respond to the society’s cry for justice
against the criminal’.”
68. It is also true that Ravji case was
followed in as many as six cases where the
death sentence was approved of. However,
in his judgment reported as Santosh Kumar
Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of
Maharashtra Hon’ble Sinha, J. pointed out
that this judgment is per incuriam as the law
laid down therein is contrary to the law laid
down in Bachan Singh case where the
principle has fallen out to the effect that the
Court should not confine its consideration
principally or merely to the circumstances
connected with the particular crime but also
give due consideration to the circumstances
of the criminal. It is because of this that we
have ventured to consider the mindset of
Accused 1 Dilip and the vicious caste grip
46 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )
that might have catapulted the crime
committed by him. We would, thus, follow
Bachan Singh case and the principles
therein rather than following the narrow
approach given in Ravji case.”
28. It would be profitable to refer to the judgment in the case of
Ramnaresh & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in
(2012) 04 SCC 257, wherein it has been held as follows:
“76. The law enunciated by this Court
in its recent judgments, as already noticed,
adds and elaborates the principles that were
stated in Bachan Singh and thereafter, in
Machhi Singh. The aforesaid judgments,
primarily dissect these principles into two
different compartments–one being the
“aggravating circumstances” while the other
being the “mitigating circumstances”. The
court would consider the cumulative effect of
both these aspects and normally, it may not
be very appropriate for the court to decide
the most significant aspect of sentencing
policy with reference to one of the classes
under any of the following heads while
completely ignoring other classes under
other heads. To balance the two is the
primary duty of the court. It will be
appropriate for the court to come to a final
conclusion upon balancing the exercise that
would help to administer the criminal justice
system better and provide an effective and
meaningful reasoning by the court as
contemplated under Section 354(3) CrPC.
47 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )Aggravating circumstances
(1) The offences relating to the commission
of heinous crimes like murder, rape,
armed dacoity, kidnapping, etc. by the
accused with a prior record of
conviction for capital felony or offences
committed by the person having a
substantial history of serious assaults
and criminal convictions.
(2) The offence was committed while the
offender was engaged in the
commission of another serious offence.
(3) The offence was committed with the
intention to create a fear psychosis in
the public at large and was committed
in a public place by a weapon or device
which clearly could be hazardous to
the life of more than one person.
(4) The offence of murder was committed
for ransom or like offences to receive
money or monetary benefits.
(5) Hired killings.
(6) The offence was committed
outrageously for want only while
involving inhumane treatment and
torture to the victim.
(7) The offence was committed by a person
while in lawful custody.
(8) The murder or the offence was
committed to prevent a person lawfully
carrying out his duty like arrest or48 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )custody in a place of lawful
confinement of himself or another. For
instance, murder is of a person who
had acted in lawful discharge of his
duty under Section 43 CrPC.
(9) When the crime is enormous in
proportion like making an attempt of
murder of the entire family or members
of a particular community.
(10) When the victim is innocent, helpless or
a person relies upon the trust of
relationship and social norms, like a
child, helpless woman, a daughter or a
niece staying with a father/uncle and
is inflicted with the crime by such a
trusted person.
(11) When murder is committed for a motive
which evidences total depravity and
meanness.
(12) When there is a cold-blooded murder
without provocation.
(13) The crime is committed so brutally that
it pricks or shocks not only the judicial
conscience but even the conscience of
the society.
Mitigating circumstances
(1) The manner and circumstances in and
under which the offence was
committed, for example, extreme
mental or emotional disturbance or
extreme provocation in
49 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )
contradistinction to all these situations
in normal course.
(2) The age of the accused is a relevant
consideration but not a determinative
factor by itself.
(3) The chances of the accused of not
indulging in commission of the crime
again and the probability of the
accused being reformed and
rehabilitated.
(4) The condition of the accused shows
that he was mentally defective and the
defect impaired his capacity to
appreciate the circumstances of his
criminal conduct.
(5) The circumstances which, in normal
course of life, would render such a
behaviour possible and could have the
effect of giving rise to mental imbalance
in that given situation like persistent
harassment or, in fact, leading to such
a peak of human behaviour that, in the
facts and circumstances of the case,
the accused believed that he was
morally justified in committing the
offence.
(6) Where the court upon proper
appreciation of evidence is of the view
that the crime was not committed in a
preordained manner and that the
death resulted in the course of50 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )commission of another crime and that
there was a possibility of it being
construed as consequences to the
commission of the primary crime.
(7) Where it is absolutely unsafe to rely
upon the testimony of a sole
eyewitness though the prosecution has
brought home the guilt of the accused.
77. While determining the questions
relatable to sentencing policy, the court has
to follow certain principles and those
principles are the loadstar besides the above
considerations in imposition or otherwise of
the death sentence.
Principles (1) The court has to apply the test to
determine, if it was the “rarest of rare”
case for imposition of a death sentence.
(2) In the opinion of the court, imposition
of any other punishment i.e. life
imprisonment would be completely
inadequate and would not meet the
ends of justice.
(3) Life imprisonment is the rule and death
sentence is an exception.
(4) The option to impose sentence of
imprisonment for life cannot be
cautiously exercised having regard to
the nature and circumstances of the
crime and all relevant considerations.
(5) The method (planned or otherwise) and
51 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )
the manner (extent of brutality and
inhumanity, etc.) in which the crime
was committed and the circumstances
leading to commission of such heinous
crime.
78. Stated broadly, these are the
accepted indicators for the exercise of
judicial discretion but it is always preferred
not to fetter the judicial discretion by
attempting to make the excessive
enumeration, in one way or another. In other
words, these are the considerations which
may collectively or otherwise weigh in the
mind of the court, while exercising its
jurisdiction. It is difficult to state it as an
absolute rule. Every case has to be decided
on its own merits. The judicial
pronouncements, can only state the precepts
that may govern the exercise of judicial
discretion to a limited extent. Justice may be
done on the facts of each case. These are the
factors which the court may consider in its
endeavour to do complete justice between
the parties.
79. The court then would draw a
balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating
circumstances. Both aspects have to be
given their respective weightage. The court
has to strike a balance between the two and
see towards which side the scale/balance of
justice tilts. The principle of proportion
between the crime and the punishment is the
52 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )
principle of “just deserts” that serves as the
foundation of every criminal sentence that is
justifiable. In other words, the “doctrine of
proportionality” has a valuable application
to the sentencing policy under the Indian
criminal jurisprudence. Thus, the court will
not only have to examine what is just but
also as to what the accused deserves
keeping in view the impact on the society at
large.
80. Every punishment imposed is
bound to have its effect not only on the
accused alone, but also on the society as a
whole. Thus, the courts should consider
retributive and deterrent aspect of
punishment while imposing the extreme
punishment of death.
81. Wherever, the offence which is
committed, manner in which it is committed,
its attendant circumstances and the motive
and status of the victim, undoubtedly bring
the case within the ambit of “rarest of rare”
cases and the court finds that the imposition
of life imprisonment would be inflicting of
inadequate punishment, the court may
award death penalty. Wherever, the case
falls in any of the exceptions to the “rarest of
rare” cases, the court may exercise its
judicial discretion while imposing life
imprisonment in place of death sentence.”
29. So far as the appellant Vinay Vishwakarma is concerned,
he is aged about 60 years and so far as the appellant Santosh
53 | P a g e
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:21284-DB )
Bhuiyan is concerned, he would be aged about 45 years. There
does not appear to be any complaint against them while in
custody and there is nothing to indicate that they will not be
reformed or rehabilitated in the society. None of the appellants
have got any criminal antecedents. These mitigating
circumstances would entail us to modify the sentence imposed
upon the appellants Vinay Vishwakarma and Santosh Bhuiyan
as it also seems that the present case does not come within the
category of ‘rarest of rare’ cases. On consideration of the
aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we modify the
sentence of the appellants Vinay Vishwakarma and Santosh
Bhuiyan to rigorous imprisonment for life.
30. The reference is accordingly answered and while Cr. Appeal
(DB) Nos. 1413 of 2017, 1500 of 2017 and 1390 of 2017 are
allowed, Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos. 1433 of 2017 and 1937 of 2017
are dismissed with the modification in the sentence awarded
to the appellants.
31. Since the appellants in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1390 of 2017,
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1413 of 2017 and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1500
of 2017 are in custody, they are directed to be released
immediately and forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.
32. All these appeals are disposed of.
33. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)
(SANJAY PRASAD, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated the 30th Day of July, 2025
Preet/N.A.F.R.
54 | P a g e