Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:10811-DB ) Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 189 of 1999(R) (Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 21.04.1999 passed by Sri S.H. Kazmi, learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in S.T. No. 704/1994.) 1. Chharu Ram Murmu, S/o Late Tupa Ram Murmu. 2. Bhim Sen Murmu, S/o Chharu Ram Murmu. Both residents of Mutur Khanu, P.S. Bahragora, Dist.- Singhbhum(East). ... Appellants Versus 1. The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand). 2. Padam Hembram, S/o Late Ruiha Hembram, R/o Mutur Khanu, P.S. Bahragora, Dist.- East Singhbhum. … Respondents ---- PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ---- For the Appellants : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashishtha, Spl. P.P. ---- CAV on : 05/02/2025 Pronounced on : 08/04/2025 Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. : 1. Heard Mr. A. K. Sahni, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, learned Spl. P.P. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 21.04.99 passed by Sri S.H. Kazmi, learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, in S.T. No. 704/1994, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. 3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Padam Hembram recorded on 20.07.1994 in which it has been stated that the son of the informant, namely, Ruhia Hembram had an affair with Surajmuni Murmu and he used to frequently visit her house. In the Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:10811-DB ) 2 | P a g e night of 19.07.1994, Ruhia Hembram had gone to sleep in the house of Surajmuni Hembram and on that day, Chharu Ram Murmu, the father of Surajmuni Murmu, who despised the affair, along with his brother Bhim Sen Murmu, had committed the murder of Ruhia Hembram by pressing his neck as well as his stomach. It has been alleged that in the next morning, the informant came to know about the occurrence and had gone to the house of Surajmuni Murmu where the dead body of his son was found at a distance of 200 yards from the house of Surajmuni Murmu. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Baharagora P.S. Case No. 47/94 was instituted under Section 302/34 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. 704/1994. Charge was framed against the accused under Section 302/34 IPC 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 seven witnesses in support of its case: P.W.1 Padam Hembram is the informant and the father of the deceased, who has stated that his son had an affair with the daughter of Chharu Murmu and on the fateful night, his son had gone to the house of Surajmuni Murmu. In the morning, Gango had informed him that his son is lying in a cluster of bamboo trees at which he, along with 2-3 persons rushed to the said place, where he had seen his son lying in an injured state with gurgling sound coming from his throat. He was carried by four persons and kept at the doorstep of Dihri Tudu. He has stated that Dihri Tudu had disclosed that Chharu and Bhim Sen had committed the murder of his son. The reason for the murder is due to the love affair between his son and the daughter of Chharu. In cross-examination, he has deposed that his son Ruhia had left the house after he went to sleep. He had not witnessed the assault. He had stated before the Police about the involvement of Chharu and Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:10811-DB ) 3 | P a g e Bhim Sen on the disclosure made by Dihri Tudu. P.W.2 Dihri Tudu has stated that on 20.07.1994, in the morning he had received an information that his nephew Ruhia Hembram has been murdered. He had gone near the cluster of bamboo trees of Gorachand and had found his nephew with injuries on his person and bleeding profusely. He was carried by four villagers to his house. The incident had occurred in the house of Chharu Ram. He has proved the fardbeyan which has been marked as Exhibit-1 and his signature on the same which has been marked as Exhibit-1/1. He has stated that Ruhia Hembram had died prior to the arrival of the Police. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had come to know about the incident in the early morning from Jogo Murmu. P.W.3 Saral Besra has proved his signature on the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-2. In cross-examination, he has deposed that the Police had not recorded his statement. P.W.4 Gorachand Murmu has stated that he does not know as to how Ruhia Hembram had died. P.W.5 Lugu Hembram has proved his thumb impression upon the inquest report which has been marked as “X” for identification. P.W.6 Surai Mardi is the brother-in-law of Ruhia Hembram, who has stated that the incident occurred at midnight when he and Ruhia Hembram had gone to the house of Surajmuni. He was standing in the back door when Ruhia Hembram had gone inside the house. He had seen Ruhia Hembram conversing with Surajmuni in a cot. Bhim Sen Murmu had called Chharu Ram Murmu and both came with lathis and assaulted Ruhia Hembram and thereafter, strangulated him. Both Bhim Sen Murmu and Chharu Ram Murmu had come out from the door situated on the western side with the body of Ruhia Hembram and threw him in the cluster of bamboo trees belonging to Gorachand Murmu. While returning, the accused persons had seen him. He has stated that the accused persons, by Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:10811-DB ) 4 | P a g e catching hold of a ‘Gamcha’ in his neck, were dragging him towards the house of Chharu Ram, but he managed to wriggle out and flee from the said place. In the morning, he had disclosed about the incident to the villagers. In cross-examination, he has deposed that the distance between his house and the house of Chharu Ram and Bhim Sen is about 500 meters. He and Ruhia had gone to the house of Surajmuni because Ruhia had an illicit relationship with Surajmuni. Because of their illicit relationship, he was standing on guard outside. He has deposed that the house of Surajmuni is covered in hay and there is a boundary wall on all four sides. No person standing outside can see the inside of the house. He had seen the incident from the door. There are three houses in the vicinity of the house of the accused. When a cry of alarm was raised, none of the neighbors had come for assistance. There were no persons present near the place where he was standing. When the accused were taking away Ruhia Hembram, then also he had not seen any person present. It was a moonlit night when the incident had occurred. P.W.7 Dr. Rajan Sinha was posted as a Medical Officer in Ghatshila Court Hospital and on 21.07.1994, he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Ruhia Hembram and had found the following: (i) Long bruise on back 3 inches x 1 inch and 4 inches x 1 inch. (ii) Bruise on chest 3 inches x 2 inches. On dissection, there was subcutaneous hematoma on chest wall. On opening the chest, there was fracture of multiple ribs of both sides which lacerated the lungs lead to huge collection of blood and thoracic cavity. (iii) Neck was swollen. On dissection, there was no subcutaneous hematoma. All the Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:10811-DB ) 5 | P a g e injuries were ante-mortem in nature. The cause of death was opined to be due to shock and traumatic asphyxia due to hard and blunt pressure on the chest wall. He has proved the post-mortem report which has been marked as Exhibit-3. 5. The statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they have denied their complicity in the murder of Ruhia Hembram. 6. It has been submitted by Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the appellants that there are no eyewitnesses to the incident. It has been submitted that P.W.6 claims himself to be an eyewitness, but his cross-examination reveals that from outside nothing could be seen inside. Moreover, none of the witnesses have disclosed about P.W.6 being an eyewitness to the occurrence. The Investigating Officer has not been examined which has caused prejudice to the defence. The place of occurrence has also not been established. 7. Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, learned Special P.P. has submitted that P.W.6, in categorical terms, has stated about the assault committed by the appellants upon Ruhia Hembram and the act of strangulating him to death. The post-mortem report reveals that the manner of assault has been corroborated as traumatic asphyxia was the cause of death. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides and have also perused the trial court records. 9. The only eyewitness, as projected by the prosecution, is P.W.6 who is said to have accompanied Ruhia Hembram when he had gone to meet his paramour Surajmuni Murmu in the midnight and both the accused are said to have strangulated Ruhia Hembram after committing assault upon him with lathis. As per P.W.6, there were three houses in the vicinity but none of the inmates had come when a cry of alarm was raised. The post-mortem report reveals the brutality of the assault and if the same was committed in the house of the accused at midnight, the sound of alarm would have travelled faster considering the fact that it was a rural area and the serenity of the Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:10811-DB ) 6 | P a g e place can easily be measured. So far as witnessing the incident is concerned, as per P.W.6, anyone standing outside would not be able to see the happenings inside the house as there was a boundary wall on all four sides. Even if we assume that P.W.6 had seen the occurrence through the door, but his description of the incident does not seem to corroborate with the findings recorded in the post-mortem report. The cause of death was opined to be due to traumatic asphyxia on account of hard and blunt pressure on the chest wall. Multiple ribs were also found fractured. There is no finding which supports indiscriminate assault with lathis and strangulation. The findings in the post-mortem report discards the evidence of P.W.6 in his capacity as an eyewitness. P.W.6 has also stated about disclosing the incident to the villagers, but as per P.W.1 in his cross-examination, it was P.W.2 who had disclosed about the accused persons committing the murder of his son and as per P.W.2, it was Jogo Murmu who had informed him in the morning prior to the information given by P.W.6. In fact, Jogo Murmu has not been examined by the prosecution. Another aspect of the case is the dead body of Ruhia Hembram having been found near the cluster of bamboo trees belonging to Gorachand Murmu. Since we have discarded the evidence of P.W.6 being unreliable and untrustworthy, the other witnesses do not speak of the presence of the deceased in the house of the accused. In fact, P.W.1, who is the father of the deceased, in his cross-examination has deposed that the deceased had left his home after P.W.1 had gone to sleep. It would, therefore, appear that the entire story of the prosecution is based on surmises and the circumstances originating from the case does not suggest that on account of the illicit affair of the deceased with Surajmuni Murmu, the accused persons were instrumental in eliminating the deceased. The discussions made hereinabove reveals the fallibility of the prosecution case and, therefore, the assertion of the learned counsel for the appellants that the non-examination of the Investigating Officer has caused prejudice to the defence, is not being gone into. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:10811-DB ) 7 | P a g e 10. Consequent to the above findings, we hereby set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 21.04.1999 passed by Sri S.H. Kazmi, learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in S.T. No. 704/94. 11. This appeal is allowed. 12. Since the appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 8th Day of April, 2025 Preet/N.A.F.R.