Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 249 of 1997(P) (Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 10.01.1997 (sentence passed on 16.01.1997) passed by Sri Rakeshwar Dayal, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahibganj in S.T. No. 230 of 1989/ 231 of 1993) Haridas Murmu, S/o Bajal Murmu, R/o Vill- Pokharia, P.S. Taljhari, Dist.- Sahibganj. ... Appellant Versus The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) … Respondent ---- PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ---- For the Appellant : Mr. Prabhash Kumar, Amicus Curiae For the Respondent : Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P. ---- CAV on : 08/01/2025 Pronounced on: 14/01/2025 Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. : 1. Heard Mr. Prabhash Kumar, learned amicus curiae for the appellant and Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned A.P.P. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 10.01.1997 (sentence passed on 16.01.1997) passed by Sri Rakeshwar Dayal, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahibganj in S.T. No. 230 of 1989/231 of 1993, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 3. The prosecution case arises out of the written report of Gopal Hembram in which it has been alleged that in the night between 9-10.04.1989, Khapra Tudu has been murdered and no proof has been collected as yet with respect to the assailant. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Taljhari PS Case No. 14/1989 was instituted under Section 302 IPC against unknown persons. 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 ST No. 230 of 1989/231 of 2 | P a g e 1993. Charge was framed against the accused under Section 302 IPC which was read over and explained to him in Hindi, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses in support of its case: P.W.1 Gopal Hembram is the informant and is the village Pradhan of village Pokharia, who has stated that the villagers and the son of Khapra Tudu, namely, Charan had come and disclosed that Khapra Tudu has been murdered in the midnight of Sunday. He had given a written application to the Officer-in-Charge based upon such information. He has proved the written report which has been marked as Exhibit-1. When the Officer-in-Charge had come, Hopen Mai Soren had disclosed that her mother has been murdered by Haridas Murmu(appellant). She had further disclosed that Haridas Murmu had come to her house and committed the murder of Khapra Tudu with a Tangi. The Police had seized blood-stained clothes and mattress from the house of Khapra Tudu and a seizure list was prepared. He has proved his signature on the seizure list which has been marked as Exhibit-2. In cross-examination, he has deposed that when Charan had given him the information about the murder of his mother, he had gone to the house of Charan where the sisters of Charan and others were weeping. He had seen the dead body of Khapra Tudu and had also asked about the assailant from her daughter. The name of Haridas Murmu was not disclosed and later on, under a conspiracy, he has been implicated. P.W.2 Mangal Soren has been tendered by the prosecution. P.W.3 Anisur Rahaman has identified his signature on the seizure list of a tangi seized from the house of Haridas Murmu which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2/A. P.W.4 Charan Soren has stated that he was sleeping in the veranda, when his sister Hopan Soren had raised a cry of alarm at which he rushed to the said place where Hopan Soren had disclosed that Haridas Murmu has committed the murder of their mother 3 | P a g e Khapra Tudu with a tangi. He had seen injuries on the head and near the ear of his mother. He thereafter, went to the Pradhan and informed him about the incident. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he was sleeping in the veranda while his mother and sister were sleeping near the door of the room and the distance between them was ten hands. P.W.5 Hopan Mai Soren has stated that it was midnight on a Sunday when Haridas Murmu committed assault upon her mother with a tangi on head. When she raised a cry of alarm, her brother Charan Soren came and she disclosed about the incident to him. The buffalo of the accused had eaten her wheat as well as fodder which was complained to the accused and which led to the assault. Her mother died within 1-2 hours of suffering such assault. In cross-examination, she has deposed that she, her mother and younger sister were sleeping in the veranda of the courtyard. Her brother Charan was sleeping in another veranda not attached to the courtyard. There was no previous enmity with the accused. In one corner of her house, the house of the accused is situated. She had disclosed to the village Pradhan on the night of the incident itself that her mother has been murdered by Haridas Murmu. P.W.6 Ramvrit Prasad was posted as an Officer-in-Charge of Taljhari P.S., who has stated that on 10.04.1989 he had received a written application from Gopal Hembram, the village Pradhan of Pokharia village and on the basis of which Taljhari P.S. Case No. 14/1989 was registered. He has proved the formal FIR which has been marked as Exhibit-3. He has proved the endorsement on the written application which has been marked as Exhibit-4. He had taken over the investigation of the case and had recorded the restatement of the informant. He had prepared the inquest report and had also inspected the place of occurrence which is at village Pokharia in the doorstep of Khapra Tudu. He had seized a blood-stained mattress and a seizure list was prepared which has been marked as Exhibit-5. He had sent the body for post-mortem examination. He had recorded the statement of Hopan Mai Soren. He had seized a tangi from the house 4 | P a g e of the accused in which the wooden portion was found freshly broken for which a seizure list was prepared which has been marked as Exhibit-5/A. He had recorded the statement of other witnesses and after obtaining the post-mortem report, had submitted charge sheet. The blood-stained mattress was sent to Patna for examination, but no report was received. In cross-examination, he has deposed that the tangi seized from the house of the accused was not sent for forensic examination. He has further deposed that Hopan Mai Soren was sleeping with her mother. P.W.7 Ram Soren has been tendered by the prosecution. P.W.8 Parao Soren has proved his signature on the seizure list of tangi which has been marked as Exhibit-5/B. P.W.9 Paro Soren has been tendered by the prosecution. P.W.10 Dr. Prabhas Kumar Singh was posted at Referral Hospital, Rajmahal and on 10.04.1989, he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Khapra Tudu and had found the following: (i) Sharp cut 1” x ½” x 1” on the right side of skull in parieto-temporal area. (ii) Bleeding from nose- On dissection, there was massive clot found in sub-dural area. The arachnoid and piametre were damaged in right side of skull. The cause of death was opined to be due to head injury leading to coma and ultimately cardiorespiratory failure and death. He has proved the post-mortem report which has been marked as Exhibit-6. 5. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which the accused has denied his complicity in the commission of the murder of Khapra Tudu. 6. The defence has examined two witnesses on its behalf: D.W.1 Bariar Kisku has stated that the accused does not have any buffaloes. Nothing incriminating was recovered from the house of the accused. D.W.2 Anpe Soren has stated that no quarrel had taken place on the date of the incident between the deceased and the accused. 5 | P a g e 7. It has been submitted by Mr. Prabhas Kumar, learned amicus curiae that P.W.5 is the sole eyewitness, but her evidence is full of contradictions, when the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4 are considered. The sister of P.W.5 was sleeping with her but she has not been examined by the prosecution. Even P.W.4, who is the son of the deceased and who was also sleeping in the same premises, has not stated about witnessing the assault. 8. Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned A.P.P. has submitted that the evidence of P.W.5 is reliable and trustworthy and the conviction of the appellant has rightly been based upon the evidence of a solitary eyewitness which inspires confidence and, therefore, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides and have also perused the trial court records. 10. P.W.5 is the solitary eyewitness to the occurrence whose evidence reveals that while she was sleeping with her mother and younger sister in the veranda attached to the courtyard, the appellant had come and committed assault upon her mother which resulted in her death. P.W.5 has also stated about disclosing the incident and the identity of the assailant on the same night to the village Pradhan, who has been examined as P.W.1. However, the written report of P.W.1 addressed to the Officer-in-Charge of Taljhari P.S. does not disclose the name of the assailant. P.W.1 has given a contradictory version to the effect that when P.W.4 informed him about the incident, he had gone to the house of P.W.5, but she had not disclosed the name of the appellant as the assailant and P.W.1 has also expressed an apprehension that under a well-thought-out plan the appellant has been falsely implicated. It would also seem that though P.W.4 was sleeping in the same compound in another veranda at a distance of ten hands from his mother and sister, but he did not have any inkling about the assault. The assault seems to have been committed by giving a heavy blow on the head of the deceased with a tangi which proved fatal but still P.W.4 remained unaware about such happening. The sister of P.W.5 could have been an important witness but she has 6 | P a g e not been examined by the prosecution. The tangi whose wooden handle was found broken was not sent to F.S.L. for forensic examination. The animosity which has been alleged is trivial in nature. As we have discarded the evidence of P.W.5 as an eyewitness, there are no other incriminating materials which would point to the guilt of the appellant. 11. We, therefore, on the basis of the discussions made hereinabove, set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 10.01.1997 (sentence passed on 16.01.1997) passed by Sri Rakeshwar Dayal, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahibganj in S.T. No. 230 of 1989/ 231 of 1993. 12. This appeal is allowed. 13. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed. 14. Since the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds. 15. Before parting with this order, we must appreciate the assistance rendered by Mr. Prabhash Kumar, learned amicus curiae and direct the Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee to extend the stipulated fees to the learned amicus curiae within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, immediately and forthwith. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 14th Day of January, 2025 Preet/N.A.F.R.