Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 341 of 1998 (R) 2025:JHHC:20117-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI [Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.11.1998, passed by Shri Rakesh Ranjan Verma, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-V, Ranchi in connection with Sessions Trial No. 06 of 1989, arising out of Namkum P.S. Case No. 120 of 1981, Corresponding to G.R. No. 2105 of 1981] Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 341 of 1998 (R) Chama Lakra @ Chama Oraon, S/o Bigal Lakra, R/o Rajaulathu Piridih Tola, P.S. Namkum, Dist. Ranchi … 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 AMBUJ NATH ---------- For the Appellant : M/s. Arwind Kumar, Amicus Curiae For the State : M/s. Shweta Singh, A.P.P. --------- C.A.V. On 10.07.2025 Pronounced on 17.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Arwind Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. Shweta Singh, learned A.P.P. 2. The appellant Chama Lakra @ Chama Oraon has filed this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.11.1998, passed by Shri Rakesh Ranjan Verma, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-V, Ranchi in connection with Sessions Trial No. 06 of 1989, arising out of Namkum P.S. Case No. 120 of 1981, Corresponding to G.R. No. 2105 of 1981, holding the appellant guilty of offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal code and thereby sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of written report of the informant, namely, Manseet Lakra alleging therein Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 341 of 1998 (R) 2025:JHHC:20117-DB 2 that on 15.08.1981 at about 06:00 P.M., he was returning home after consuming liquor with Lodo Lakra, Fanual Kachhap, Mangra Tirkey and Butru Rai, when Bhogta Oraon along with three other persons intercepted them near Raja Ulautola, Piridih. Bhogta Oraon is alleged to have assaulted Mangra Tirkey by a Balua. The accused persons had also assaulted Butru Rai. Mangra Tirkey succumbed to his injuries. 4. After investigation police found the occurrence to be true and submitted charge-sheet against the appellant on 18.11.1981 for the offence under sections 302, 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The cognizance of the case was taken by the learned C.J.M, Ranchi on 27.11.1981. This case was committed to the court of Sessions by learned, J.M.F.C Ranchi on 17.12.1988. 5. Charge was framed against the appellant on 30.08.1989 under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The contents of the charge were read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. 7. The informant Manseet Lakra has been examined as P.W.1. Burtru Rai, one of the injured has been examined as P.W.2 Lodo Lakra has been examined as P.W.3. Mahadev Tirkey has been examined as P.W.4. Mahadev Lakra has been examined as P.W.5 Leda Tirkey has been examined as P.W.6 Dr. R. S. Prasad who had conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased has been examined as P.W.7. William Kachhap has been examined as P.W.8. Ram Suresh Upadhyay, the Investigating officer of this case is P.W.9. Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 341 of 1998 (R) 2025:JHHC:20117-DB 3 Tulsi Hanse has been examined P.W.10. The Fardbeyan along with the signature of the informant is Ext:-1 series. The postmortem report has been marked has Ext:-2 The formal FIR has been marked as Ext:-3. The inquest report along with signatures of witnesses have been marked as Ext:- 4 series. The injury report of the injured Butru Rai is Ext: -5. Seizure list is Ext:-. 6. 8. Statement of the appellant was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., defence is general denial of the occurrence. 9. On the basis of the evidence both oral and documentary available on the record the learned trial court held the appellant guilty for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him accordingly. 10. Mr. Arvind Kumar learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that from the perusal of the statement of all the prosecution witnesses, it will be apparent that it was Bhogta Oraon who had assaulted the deceased Mangra Tirkey due to which he succumbed to his injuries. It was further submitted that no witness has levelled any allegation of overt act against the appellant and as such it cannot be said that the appellant had a common intention for committing the murder of deceased Mangra Tirkey with other accused persons. It was also submitted that two of the other accused were not sent up for trial as the police did not submit charge-sheet against them. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, it was submitted that this appeal be allowed and the appellant be acquitted of the charge. 11. Shweta Singh learned A.P.P. has submitted that the appellant was present at the spot and as such his role in the commission of the said offence cannot be ruled out. 12. Now it has to be ascertained: - Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 341 of 1998 (R) 2025:JHHC:20117-DB 4 (i) whether the deceased Mangra Tirkey died a homicidal death? (ii) Whether the appellant had any role in committing the murder of the deceased Mangra Tirkey? From the perusal of the inquest report it appears that the Investigating Officer of this case while examining the dead body of the deceased Mangra Tirkey has found injuries on his person caused by sharp cutting weapon. On perusal of the statement of Dr. R.S. Prasad P.W.7, it appears that he had performed the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries on his person. (i) Incised wound 6X2cm on the left parietal part of the head diverted down and backward cutting the underlying bone with terminal split of brain matter. (ii) 2X ½ X ½ cm on the center of the head behind the hair margin diverted backward. (iii) 2X ½ X ½ cm behind the right ear. (iv) 5X ¼ X ¼ cm left infra scapular region diverted up to posterior midline. According to this witness, the death of the deceased was caused due to incised wound caused by Balua. His oral testimony in the court, corroborates his findings in the postmortem report. Manseet Lakra P.W.1 the informant of this case, Butru Rai @ Inderdeo Rai P.W.2. and Lodo Lakra P.W.3, all were present at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence. Butru Rai is one of the injured witnesses. All these witnesses have stated that Bhogta Oraon and one unknown person had assaulted the deceased Mangra Tirkey by Balua and Tangi due to which he succumbed to his injuries. Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 341 of 1998 (R) 2025:JHHC:20117-DB 5 From the perusal of oral and documentary evidence, it is apparent that the deceased Mangra Tirkey had died a homicidal death. 13. Now it has to be ascertained whether the appellant had any role in committing the murder of the deceased? It is the case of the prosecution that accused Bhogta Oraon along with three unknown persons had assaulted the deceased Mangra Tirkey due to which he succumbed to his injuries. One of the witnesses Butru Rai was also assaulted. All the witnesses, namely Manseet Lakra P.W.1. Butru Rai P.W.2 and Lodo Lakra P.W.3 have stated that on 15.08.1989 between 06:00 to 06:30 P.M., they were returning home from Pirdih Basti, after consuming liquor. While on the way Bhogta Oraon and two other persons intercepted them and started quarreling with them and Bhogta Oraon gave Balua blow on the head of the deceased Mangra Tirkey. The accused persons had also assaulted Butru Rai. Mangra Tirkey died while on the way to the hospital. None of these witnesses have stated that the appellant had assaulted the deceased or the injured Butru Rai. They have not stated anything regarding any overt act committed by the appellant. Mahadev Tirkey P.W.4. and Leda Tirkey P.W.6 are hearsay witnesses. 14. Accordingly, from the aforesaid facts and also coupled with the fact that the appellant has not been charged under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, it cannot be said that the appellant had common intention with accused Bhogta Oraon for committing the murder of the deceased Mangra Tirkey. 15. In view of the aforesaid facts we come to a finding that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the appellant for the murder of the deceased beyond all reasonable Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 341 of 1998 (R) 2025:JHHC:20117-DB 6 doubt. 16. This appeal is allowed. 17. The appellant is on bail. He along with his bailors are discharged from their liability towards bail bond. 18. Pending I.A, if any, also stands disposed of. 19. We record our appreciation towards Shri Arwind Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae, who has very ably assisted this court in deciding this case. Member Secretary JHALSA is directed to pay him Rs. 7,000 /- by way of remuneration. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) (Ambuj Nath, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi. Dated:-17.07.2025 Saurabh/NAFR