1 Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 876 of 2013 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:17645-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 876 of 2013 1. Punchama Singh @ Pancham Singh, son of Prabhu Singh 2. Indra Singh @ Indradeo Singh, son of Late Bisheshwar Singh 3. Rajdeo Singh, son of Late Parmeshwar Singh All residents of village: Uttrathi, PS: Tandwa, PO: Tandwa, District: Chatra, Jharkhand. ... Appellants -Versus- State of Jharkhand ...Respondent CORAM :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH For the Appellants : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P. … CAV Judgment Pronounced on: 01/07/2025 Per, R.Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl.P.P. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 07.10.2013 and dated 08.10.2013 respectively passed by Shri Mohammad Shakir, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Chatra, in S.T. Case No. 166/10, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act and have been sentenced to RI for life along with a fine of Rs.15000/- each and in case of default in payment of fine they were directed to undergo RI for six months for the offence under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and RI for seven years along with a fine of Rs.5000/- each and in case of default in payment of fine to undergo RI for six months for the offence under section 27 of the Arms Act. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Suchita Minz recorded on 16.01.2010 in which it has been stated that on 15.01.2010 at 2 Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 876 of 2013 05:00 p.m. the informant was grazing the goats behind her house and her husband Barnabas Ekka after ploughing the field had come near the khalihan with his buffalo when at around 05:30 p.m. four persons came out from the back and caught hold of the husband of the informant. It has been alleged that the husband of the informant was felled on the ground and shot and his hand was chopped off with an axe. When the informant screamed and rushed to the spot she saw Puncham Singh, Inder Singh and Rajdev Singh whereas she could not identify the fourth assailant. After committing the assault all the four persons fled away. She had not identified the person who had an axe. The husband of the informant died at the spot itself. The reason for the occurrence is of a land dispute between both the parties existing for several years. About fifteen years prior to the occurrence there was a quarrel with Rajdev Singh regarding the grazing of his ox in front of the house of the informant in which a threatening was given by Rajdev Singh. Based on the aforesaid allegations Piparwar PS Case No. 02/10 was instituted under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as S.T. Case No. 166/10. Charge was framed against the accused under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act which was read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses in support of its case. 5. PW-1 Sudip Ekka is the son of the deceased who has stated that the incident is of 15.01.2010 on which date his father had died. He was inside the house. When he rushed out on hearing his mother’s cry, he found his father lying dead. His mother had disclosed that Puncham Singh, Inder Singh and Rajdev Singh have committed the murder of his father and had fled away. His mother had disclosed that there was another assailant whom she could not identify. In cross-examination he has deposed that the houses of Lido Uraon and Piyush Ekka are adjacent to his house. He had not seen the assault. The dead body of his father was lying at a distance of 100 meters from his house. He had not stated before the police that his mother had informed him that Inder Singh , Rajdev Singh and Puncham Singh had committed the assault 3 Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 876 of 2013 and had fled away and that the other assailant could not be identified. 6. PW-2 Anita Ekka has stated that on the day when the murder of her brother Barnabas Ekka was committed she was at Dotrathi. She claimed to know about the incident in the morning of 16.01.2010. Her sister-in-law had disclosed to her about the manner of occurrence and the assault caused with a firearm and axe. Her sister-in-law had claimed to have identified Inder Singh, Rajdev Singh and Puncham Singh. The person holding an axe could not be recognized. Her statement was recorded by the police. She has proved the signature on the seizure list which has been marked as Ext.1. In cross examination she has deposed that she had not witnessed the incident. When her sister-in-law had disclosed about the incident no one else was present. She had received a letter addressed to her younger brother which was with respect to partition of property. 7. PW-3 Suchita Minz is the informant and the wife of the deceased who has stated that on 15.01.2010 at 05:00 p.m. she was grazing cattle in front of her house and her husband was coming with a buffalo and as soon as he reached near the khalihan four persons came out from the bushes and they caught hold of her husband and felled him on the ground and one of them fired at her husband while another of the accused assaulted him with an axe. When she screamed her son Sudip Ekka came out from the house and thereafter they had brought the dead body inside the house. She had identified Rajdev Singh, Puncham Singh and Inder Singh while the fourth person could not be identified by her. On that day she and the others did not come out and in the next morning the police were informed who came and recorded her fardbeyan. She has proved her fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext.2. In cross-examination she has deposed that her house is visible from the place where she was grazing goat. Darkness was descending. There was a long-standing land dispute with Puncham Singh. 8. PW-4 Dr. Nityanand Mandal had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Barnabas Ekka and had found the following: “1.(A) Incised wound over left wrist joint 4” x 2 ½” x 1 ½” , 3 ½” x 2 ½” x 1 ½” reddish brown colour. Bone and mussels in size the cut along with wound. (B) Firearm injury- entry wound of firearm over left chest volve 3” below and outer part of left clavide- 1 cm x ¾ cm over margin inverted with collar of greeze and abrasion, reddish brown colour. (C) Entry wound- left upper chest- first inter costal space- side of sternum, margin inverted, with greeze and abrasion collar- brownish red colour, size 1 ½” x 1 ½”. Bleeding and scorching 4 Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 876 of 2013 of skin around seen ( 1 ½ cm periphery). Both wound reddish brown colour and both wound was entering to the chest cavity. 2. On exploration Left rib fracture with haematoma adjacent muscular lacerated under injury No.(c). Left plural cavity filled with blood. Left lung lacerated. Haematored, upper mediastinum and communicating to right thoracic cavity, right lungs upper love lacerated, filled with blood. Single bullet was lodged in right upper thoracic cavity outside case near right axillary area. Bullet collected and handed over to the Police. Heart -Pericardium pale, both chambers empty. Abdomen- all viscera’s were pale. Semi digested food rice present in stomach.” The cause of death was opined to be due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from firearm injury over left side of chest wall and other injuries. He has proved the post-mortem report which has been marked as Ext.3. 9. PW-5 Birendra Ekka was in his house at Uttarhati tola on 15.01.2010 when on an information he had come to the place of occurrence and was informed that his brother Barnabas Ekka is dead. The informant had disclosed that Barnabas after ploughing his field was returning with his buffalo towards the khalihan when four persons came and committed his murder by means of firearms and the axe. There was a dispute between both the sides with respect to land for which panchayati was also held. The informant had disclosed to him about the name of three assailants Puncham, Inder and Rajdev Singh. In cross-examination he has deposed that there was no litigation between both the sides relating to the land dispute. He had not seen the assault. He had reached the place of occurrence at 07:00 a.m. The informant had disclosed to him about the incident. 10. PW-6 Siprian Bage was posted as an officer-in-charge of Piparwar PS and he had recorded the fardbeyan of Suchita Minz. Inquest report was prepared in his presence by Suresh Minz. The body was sent for conducting autopsy. He had inspected the place of occurrence which is at a distance of 80-90 yards from the khalihan. He had recorded the restatement of the informant as well as the statement of other witnesses. He has proved the seizure list which has been marked as Ext.4 and his signature has been proved and marked as Ext.4/1. Anita Ekka had given him a letter which was written by Karlos Ekka. He had submitted the charge-sheet. He has proved his signature on the fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext.2/1. He has also proved the formal FIR which has been marked as Ext.5 and his signatures on 5 Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 876 of 2013 the same which have been marked as Ext.5 and Ext.5/2. In cross-examination he has deposed that the fardbeyan was recorded in the courtyard of the informant and the dead body was lying in the courtyard. He had not recovered any murder weapon from the place of occurrence. He had raided the house of the accused but the murder weapon could not be recovered. No incriminating article was recovered from the possession of the accused when they were arrested. He had not recorded the statement of Shanti Devi who is the neibhbour of the informant. He had not conducted any investigation on the letter given to him by Anita. 11. The statements of the accused were recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they have denied their complicity in the commission of the offence of murder of Barnabas Ekka. 12. The defence has examined one witness in support of its case. 13. DW-1 Shanti Devi is a neighbour of the informant who stays at a distance of 125 ft. from her house. The day when the occurrence had taken place her son Sonu had gone to the house of the informant to play. It was 05:00 p.m. and dark when she had gone to the house of the informant where she had seen her son sitting. She had seen the informant cooking food. When the informant asked her to sit she had sat down and when she heard some sound of bursting she thought children were instrumental for such sound. She had politely refused to have dinner as offered by the informant as she had already prepared dinner at her house and as she, the informant and their sons came out of the house she had seen the buffalo of the informant entering the courtyard. While she was going home in the light of torch she found Barnabas Ekka lying down on his stomach and when the informant came and picked him up he was found to be dead. All of them took the body of Barnabas Ekka home. In cross-examination she has deposed that she had not seen the persons who had assaulted Barnabas. There was no enmity between the deceased and the accused persons. 14. It has been submitted by Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the appellants that PW-3 claims herself to be an eye-witness but her evidence harbours vital contradictions and her conduct after having seen her husband being murdered leaves much room for doubt. Learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence of DW-1 whose evidence reveals about the informant having not witnessed the occurrence. It has been stated that the defence witnesses have also to be given proper weightage and cannot be 6 Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 876 of 2013 simply brushed aside. The post-mortem report contradicts the evidence of PW-3 and the son of PW-3 who has been examined as PW-1 had not stated before the police about the purported disclosure of the name of the assailants made to him by his mother. A panchayati was held for settlement of the land dispute but no documents in support of the same have been brought forward by the prosecution. 15. Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl.P.P. has submitted that the evidence of PW-3 demonstrates about the active participation of the appellants in committing the murder of Barnabas Ekka. The post-mortem report also corroborates the manner of assault and the motive for committing the murder is apparent on going through the evidence of the witnesses. 16. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the trial Court record. 17. The incident is of committing the murder of the husband of the informant, Barnabas Ekka by the appellants and a fourth unidentified assailant by means of firing and by committing assault with an axe. As per the fardbeyan of the informant the incident had taken place at around 05:30 p.m. It was winter when the incident had occurred and the darkness descends quicker in rural areas which can be inferred to mean that the time when the incident had taken place day light was at a premium. The informant had not specified as to who had committed the assault and what weapons which would bolster the case of the defence that the identification of the assailants is itself in doubt. The informant in her fardbeyan had stated about seeing a person with an axe but he could not be identified. The post-mortem report reveals about an injury committed with an axe. Moreover, it seems that the informant (PW-3) has been consistent on the point that a gun shot was fired upon her husband but the post-mortem report reveals about two firearm injuries on the person of the deceased. 18. The first person to rush out of the house on hearing the scream of PW- 3 was her son who has been examined as PW-1 but he has categorically stated that he had not disclosed before the police the names of the assailants as told to him by PW-3. Despite the incident having taken place not at some odd hours PW-3 did not raise any alarm or seek the help from neighbours and persons of the locality. The fardbeyan reveals about information furnished to the police through telephone in the next morning which would suggest that the possibility of communication was available but it was not utilized which speaks contrary to the natural human conduct when faced with such a 7 Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 876 of 2013 precarious situation. PW-2 and PW-5 who are the siblings of the deceased had arrived in the next morning to the house of PW-3 though they have not stated as to how they had come to know about the incident. Even if we assume that PW-2 and PW-5 did not have any telephone facility but the same would not have prevented PW-3 to inform them in the evening itself since as per PW-2 the distance between the village where the incident took place and the place of stay of PW-2 was 2-3 hours. Incidentally PW-5 was at that point of time was also staying in the same village as PW-2. 19. As per PW-3 after the murder was committed she had brought the dead body of her husband to the house. DW-1 has stated that on finding the dead body of Barnabas Ekka, she, PW-3 and their two children had brought the body to the courtyard. PW-6 (IO) on inspection of the place of occurrence had not stated about any signs of dragging or spilling of blood. The deceased was twice fired upon and assaulted on his head with an axe and finding blood at the place of occurrence in view of such injury is a foregone conclusion. Moreover, no articles or weapons were recovered from the place of occurrence. No empty cartridges were also recovered and even at the time of the arrest no incriminating articles were recovered from the possession of the appellants. Such circumstances creates a doubt over the place of occurrence itself. 20. On an overall conspectus of the case, as discussed above, we come to the conclusion that the sole eye-witness account of PW-3 is not reliable and trustworthy and consequently we negate the same and set aside the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 07.10.2013 and dated 08.10.2013 respectively passed by Shri Mohammad Shakir, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Chatra, in S.T. Case No. 166/10. 21. This appeal is allowed. 22. Since the appellants are in custody they are directed to be released immediately and forthwith if not wanted in any other case. 23. Pending IA, if any, stands closed. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (AMBUJ NATH, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi, Dated:01/ 07 /2025 S.B.