Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:11939-DB ) Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 60 of 1998(R) [Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.02.1998 passed by Shri Gangadhar, learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Gumla in S.T. No. 47/1989] --------- Gangai Oraon, S/o Fagu Oraon, R/o Village Kamta, P.S.- Sisai, District- Gumla …. …. Appellant Versus The State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) …. …. Respondent --------- P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI --------- For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P. --------- JUDGMENT By Court: Heard Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant 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 28.02.1998 passed by Shri Gangadhar, learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Gumla in S.T. No. 47/1989, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable u/s 302 and 201 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for the offence punishable u/s 302 of the IPC. No separate sentence has been imposed for the offence punishable u/s 201 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Paduman Adhikari recorded on 23.10.1988, in which, it has been stated that on 22.10.1988 at about 8:00 A.M. the son of the informant namely, Chandrima Adhikari had gone out of the house after taking breakfast and when he did not return till evening the same aroused suspicion in the mind of the informant and the other inmates of the house. It has been alleged that at about 6:30 P.M. on the same day one Fagua Lohra had informed that Keshwar Oraon and Gangai Oraon (appellant) were forcibly taking away the Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:11939-DB ) -2- son of the informant and Fagua Lohra had asked the informant to save the life of Chandrima Adhikari. On such information, the informant his brothers and other villagers proceeded towards Dohdih village and on the way, they had met Shankar Baraik, Musku Ram, Balkishun Ram and Dinesh Ram. These persons had disclosed that they had seen the son of the informant being taken away by the two accused persons and they had also confirmed that he was subjected to assault. A search was conducted but the same did not yield any result and ultimately at 6:00 A.M. on the next day the dead body of the son of the informant was found lying in the field of one Kanglu Oraon and there were several injuries on the person of the deceased. Based on the aforesaid allegations Sisai P.S. Case No. 88/1988 was instituted u/s 302/201/34 of the IPC. On completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as S.T. No. 47/1989. Charge was framed against the accused u/s 302/34 of the IPC which was read over and explained to them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution has examined as many as eleven witnesses in support of its case. 5. P.W.1 (Dinesh Ram), P.W.7 (Musku Ram) and P.W.8 (Balkishun Ram) have been declared hostile by the prosecution. So far as P.W.3 (Shankar Baraik), P.W.5 (Digamber Adhikari), P.W.6 (Anirudh Adhikari) and P.W.10 (Sri Ramesh Tiwari) are concerned, they are formal witnesses. 6. P.W.4 (Paduman Adhikari) is the informant and the father of the deceased who has supported the case of the prosecution and has stated about an information received by him from Fagua Lohra regarding the assault committed by the accused persons upon his son Chandrima Adhikari. He has further stated that he had rushed to the place where the assault was being Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:11939-DB ) -3- committed as per the version of Fagua Lohra along with his family members and other villagers and on the way he had met some villagers who had confirmed about the assault but in spite of a frantic search being conducted by him and the others the body of his son could not be recovered and only on the next morning at about 6:00 A.M. the body of Chandrima Adhikari was recovered from a field having several injuries on his person. 7. P.W.9 (Devendra Prasad) was posted at Sisai P.S. and on 22.10.1988 he had recorded the fardbeyan of Paduman Adhikari. He has proved the fardbeyan which has been marked as Exhibit-1. He had visited the place of occurrence and had also recorded the restatement of the informant and the statement of the other witnesses and on completion of investigation had submitted charge-sheet. 8. P.W.11 (Dr. Raj Kumar Beck) was posted as a Civil Assistant Surgeon in Sadar Hospital, Gumla and on 24.10.1988 he had conducted postmortem over the dead body of Chandrima Adhikari and had found the following: (i) Incised penetrating wound 1” x ½” x 1” on the right side below mandible. (ii) Incised penetrating wound ¾” x ½” x 1” on the left side below mandible. (iii) Incised penetrating wound 1 ½” x ½” x 3” on right side of the abdomen. (iv) Incised penetrating wound 1 ¾” x ½” x 3 ½” on mid upper abdomen with rupture of his small intestine. The cause of death has been opined to be due to shock and haemorrhage. He has proved the postmortem report which has been marked as Exhibit-7. 9. The statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., in which, he has denied his complicity in the commission of the murder of Chandrima Adhikari. 10. Submission has been advanced by Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that there is Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:11939-DB ) -4- virtually no evidence which would indicate the complicity of the appellant in the commission of murder of Chandrima Adhikari. He has submitted that as per the informant in his fardbeyan he has clearly depicted that it was P.W.2 who had informed him about witnessing the assault committed by the appellant and another named accused person upon Chandrima Adhikari pursuant to which the informant and others had rushed to the place of occurrence but in his evidence P.W.2 has not named any of the persons involved in such assault. It has been submitted that so far as the other witnesses are concerned, none have stated about the deceased having been last seen in the company of the appellant. Learned Senior Counsel submits that merely on the basis of the 164 Cr.P.C. statements of some of the witnesses the learned trial court has formed an opinion about the involvement of the appellant in committing the murder of Chandrima Adhikari. 11. Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P. for the State has submitted that the evidence of the witnesses reveals that there are strong circumstances which would indicate about the active participation of the appellant in committing the murder of Chandrima Adhikari. 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the Trial Court Records. 13. The initiation of the First Information Report seems to be on the disclosure made by P.W.2 of having seen the appellant and another accused person committing assault upon the son of the informant and on witnessing such incident he had rushed to the house of the informant and disclosed about the same at which the informant his family members and other villagers had gone in search of Chandrima Adhikari. Unfortunately, the body of Chandrima Adhikari could not be traced out on the date of occurrence but subsequently in the next morning his body was found in a field with several injuries on his person. Some of the witnesses though in their 164 Cr.P.C. statements have named the Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:11939-DB ) -5- appellant as one of the persons who was seen in the company of the deceased and that he was also involved in committing assault upon the deceased but as it appears the star witness is P.W.2 who though has stated about the assault committed upon the son of the informant but he has failed to disclose the identity of the persons who were involved in committing such assault. The evidence of P.W.2 which had formed the foundation of the prosecution case at the time when the fardbeyan of the informant was recorded has led to crumbling of the edifice on account of his not naming the persons who were involved in committing such assault. There are no other witnesses who have stated either of seeing the commission of assault or of the deceased being seen in the company of the appellant and the other accused persons. The learned trial court seems to have based its reasoning primarily on the 164 Cr.P.C. statements of some of the witnesses including that of P.W.2 without considering the fact that in their evidence during trial none have supported the involvement of the appellant in the commission of the murder. 14. Thus, there appears to be virtually no evidence which would indicate about the guilt of the appellant. We, therefore, on the basis of the discussions made hereinabove set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.02.1998 passed by Shri Gangadhar, learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Gumla in S.T. No. 47/1989. 15. This appeal stands allowed. 16. Since the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Dated, the 24th day of March, 2025. A. Sanga /-