1 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:10629-DB ) Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1615 of 2023 Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14.07.2023 (sentence passed on 21.07.2023) passed by Sri Ghulam Haider, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Koderma in Sessions Trial Case No. 155 of 2021 Vijay Das son of Sona Das, resident of Village Nauwadih, Presently residing at Village Titirchanch (at Nani’s house), P.O. & P.S. Koderma, District Koderma ... Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … Respondent ---- PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent (State) : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, APP Order No. 10 Dated 15th April, 2026 ---- Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. : 1. Heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, learned APP for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14.07.2023 (sentence passed on 21.07.2023) passed by Sri Ghulam Haider, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Koderma in Sessions Trial Case No. 155 of 2021, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable u/s 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of 15,000/- u/s 302 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and rigorous imprisonment for five years along with a fine of 5,000/- u/s 201 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2 3. The prosecution case arises out of the written report of Meena Devi in which it has been stated that on 13.05.2021, the informant along with her son Sikandar Das had gone to the house of Sanjay Das in a Maruti Alto driven by Vijay Das (Appellant). On the same day at 3.30 p.m., the son of the informant left with Vijay Das and on 15.05.2021, the brother-in-law of the informant had called the son of the informant on his mobile which was picked up by Vijay Das. When Vijay Das was asked about the whereabouts of Sikandar Das, he had given different locations and had disconnected the call. The informant has suspicion that Vijay Das has abducted her son. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Chandwara P.S. Case No. 52/2021 was instituted for the offences punishable u/s 365 of the I.P.C. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where it was registered as Sessions Trial Case No. 155 of 2021. Charge was framed against the accused for the offences punishable u/s 302 and 201/34 of the I.P.C. 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 ten (10) witnesses in support of its case. P.W. 1 Meena Devi is the informant and mother of the deceased Sikandar Das who has stated that on 13.05.2021 she had gone to attend the marriage ceremony at Charadih along with her son Sikandar Das, her daughter-in-law, Lalita Devi and the driver Vijay Das in a Maruti Alto car. On the same day at 3.30 p.m., her son returned back home with Vijay Das while she stayed back. On 14.05.2021, she had gone to her sister’s place at Village Charadih. She has stated that on 15.05.2021, she had called the driver Vijay Das and wanted to know the whereabouts of her son at which Vijay Das had assured her that at 5 p.m. she will be able to talk with her son. Vijay Das had disclosed multiple locations and thereafter disconnected the phone. This convinced her that Vijay Das had abducted her son. On 15.05.2021, she had gone to the house of Vijay Das where she had seen the Alto car. When she went to the Police Station to lodge a complaint, she came to know that Vijay 3 Das had fled away with the car. She had thereafter given a written report to Chandwara P.S. about the abduction of her son. After 4-5 days, the dead body of her son was located. The SIM of the mobile of her son was recovered from the possession of Lalita Devi. In cross examination she has deposed that on the day her son was murdered, Lalita Devi and Jitendra were with her at Charadih attending to the marriage. Lalita and Jitendra were not involved in the occurrence. The Maruti car was in the name of Shambhu Ravidas who has an agreement with her son and the installments were deposited by her son. She has deposed that her son had known Vijay Das for two years and during this period no quarrel had ever taken place between them. She has once again stated that her son had disclosed that once there was a fight which ended in a compromise. Her son used to give on hire the Maruti Alto car. She does not have any dispute with Vijay Das. P.W. 2 Kali Das is the father of the deceased Sikandar Das who has stated that on 13.05.2021 he had gone to attend a marriage ceremony along with his family members and some villagers. At about 3 p.m., his son and Vijay Das left the function and when on the next day he returned back to his house, he could come to know that his son Sikandar is not present in the house. He called on the mobile of Sikandar Das, but the same was found switched off. On 15.05.2021, when he had once again made a call in the mobile of Sikandar Das it was picked up by Vijay Das and on being asked about the whereabouts of Sikandar Das, he had disconnected the call. When they had gone to the house of Vijay Das, he came to know that on 15.05.2021, Vijay Das had left for somewhere with the Maruti Alto car. When Vijay Das was apprehended, the Maruti Alto Car as well as the mobile of Sikandar were recovered. In cross examination he has deposed that Vijay Das had confessed of committing the murder of Sikandar. He was present in the marriage the whole night and he has returned home the next morning. There was no dispute between Sikandar and Vijay Das. The body of Sikandar Das was 4 found in a room having asbestos sheet on the roof and the room belonged to him. P.W. 3 Anju Devi has stated that about a year back, she had gone to Charadih in the house of Lalan to attend a marriage ceremony. She had gone there in the car of Sikandar and Vijay. In the night of the marriage, both Sikandar and Vijay had left with the car. She was in Charadih for four days. When she had called Sikandar, his mobile was found switched off and when she called Vijay he showed his ignorance about the whereabouts of Sikandar. The dead body of Sikandar was recovered on the pointing out by Vijay. In cross examination she has deposed that when she had called Vijay he had admitted to have committed the murder of Sikandar. She is the aunt of Sikandar. The police had not recorded her statement. There was no dispute between Sikandar and Vijay Das. P.W. 4 Prakash Ravidas has not supported the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W. 5 Jirwa Devi has stated that Sikandar had gone to attend the marriage with his driver Vijay and after they returned, Sikandar became traceless. When the police had apprehended Vijay Das he had confessed to the murder and had shown them the place, where the dead body was kept. In cross examination she has deposed that she had not seen the incident. There was a cordial relationship between Sikandar Das and Vijay. Her statement was never recorded by the police. P.W. 6 Sit Ravidas has stated that Meena Devi had come to him and disclosed that Sikandar had become traceless after which he and some other persons searched for Sikandar Das, but he could not be located. He had called on the mobile of Sikandar, but he did not pick up. Later on Vijay Das picked up his call and after disclosing his identity had switched off the mobile. Thereafter the mother of Sikandar Das lodged an F.I.R. after which Vijay Das was apprehended and the Alto car of Sikandar Das was also recovered. On the pointing out by Vijay Das, the dead body of Sikandar Das was recovered from his second house situated outside the village. 5 In cross examination he has deposed that he has no knowledge about where and how the incident had taken place. P.W. 7 Dulari Devi has stated that on 13.05.2021, she had gone with her family to attend the marriage ceremony at Kariabar, Charadih and Sikandar Das along with his driver Vijay Das had also gone to attend the marriage, but they had left before her. When she had returned to her village after attending the marriage, she could come to know that Sikandar Ravidas is missing and despite search by several persons, he could not be traced out. The mother of Sikandar had lodged an F.I.R. The police had apprehended Vijay Das and the dead body of Sikandar Das was recovered on his pointing out. In cross examination she has stated that Sikandar Das had left the marriage ceremony alone. Her evidence is based on what she had heard. P.W. 8 Vinay Kumar was posted as an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police in Chandwara P.S. and on 17.05.2021, the informant Meena Devi had come to the Police Station and submitted a written report on the basis of which Chandwara P.S. Case No. 52/2021 was registered. He has proved the written report which has been marked as Ext. 1. The Signature on the formal F.I.R. has been proved and marked as Ext. 2. After taking over the investigation, he had recorded the restatement of the informant and had also inspected the place of occurrence at village Karangia in the house of Sikandar Das. He had recorded the statement of the witnesses. On secret information, he had arrested Vijay Das with the Alto car from Jamukhari. Vijay Das had given a confessional statement implicating himself as well as Lalita Devi and Jitendra Kumar of committing the murder of Sikandar Das. He has proved the confessional statement of Vijay Das which has been marked as Ext. 3. He has seized the Alto car bearing registration No. JH01CC-4475, one mobile, one broken SIM and one broken chip and had prepared a seizure list which has been proved and marked as Ext. 4. On the disclosure of Vijay, the dead body of Sikandar Das from his own house was recovered and an inquest report was prepared. The photo copy of the inquest report has been marked as ‘X’ for identification. He had thereafter arrested Lalita Devi and had recorded her confessional statement which has been proved and marked as Ext. 5. He 6 had seized a SIM from the possession of Lalita Devi and a seizure list was prepared which has been marked as Ext. 6. He had thereafter arrested Jitendra Ravidas and his confessional statement was recorded which has been proved and marked as Ext. 7. He had verified the ownership of the Alto car which was registered in the name of Nago Ram and the same was purchased by Sikandar Ravidas through an agreement dated 17.12.2009. On completion of investigation, he had submitted charge sheet. In cross examination he has deposed that the dead body of Sikandar Das was recovered one week after 13.05.2021. The place where the dead body of Sikandar Das was recovered belonged to the deceased. The witness Kali Das had stated that Vijay Das had come to his house on 15.05.2021 and left on 16.05.2021. When he had gone to recover the dead body of Sikandar Das, the house was locked, but he had not mentioned about the same in the case diary. There were signs of burning in the dead body which indicates that attempts were made to set ablaze the dead body. The witness Anju Devi had stated that during the marriage ceremony Sikandar had left with Vijay Das. P.W. 9 Dr. Rakeshwar Kumar was posted as a Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital, Koderma and on 21.05.2021 he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Sikandar Das and had found the following: A. External Appearance (i) Rigor mortis absent in all four limbs. (ii) (ii) eye and mouth burn and decomposed B. External Injuries (i) Burn of chest, pelvis and lower limb and at knee joint and decomposed. (ii) Burn of face and skull and decomposed and maggotts present. C. Internal Examination- (i) Head-Scalp- Decomposed (ii) Skull-- Burn and Decomposed (iii) Brain- Decomposed (iv) orbital, nasal and aural cavity- Burn and decomposed (v) Neck- Decomposed. (vi) Chest- Rib and chest wall- NAD Osophagus, Tracia, Bronchial, Plaural cavity – Decomposed (vii) Both Lungs- Decomposed 7 (viii) Heart- Decomposed (ix) Abdomen decomposed (x) Small intestines- decomposed (xi) Large Intestine- decomposed (xii) Liver-decomposed (xiii) Spleen decomposed (xiv) Pancreas-decomposed (xv) Kidney- decomposed (xvi) Bladder-decomposed (xvii) Pelvic cavity-decomposed (xviii) Pelvic Bone – NAD Opinion - Probable time Since Death-4 to 5 days before postmortem. The cause of death was opined to be due to cardio respiratory arrest on account of haemorrhagic and neurogenic shock due to above injuries. He has proved the postmortem report which has been marked as Ext. 8. In cross examination he has deposed that the face of the deceased was not identifiable because it had got burnt. Almost the entire body of the deceased was decomposed. P.W. 10 Nitesh Kumar was posted as an Officer-in-Charge of Chandwara P.S. who had produced the material exhibits in Court. The key on the ring kept in a plastic box has been marked as material exhibit MO-1. The black colour mobile has been marked as material exhibit MO-2 and the two SIM cards and a broke memory card have been marked as material ext. MO-3, MO-4 and MO-5. 5. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he has denied his complicity in the commission of murder of Sikandar Das. 6. The defence has examined one witness in support of its case. DW-1 Nageshwar Ram has stated that on 13.5.2021, Kali Das and his entire family members including Sikandar Das and his wife had come to his residence to participate in the marriage ceremony of his son. Sikandar Das had come on his red coloured four-wheeler. Sikandar was disabled and he could not walk. On the day of his arrival, Sikandar had left with his driver at 3.30 p.m. 8 In cross examination he has deposed that he does not know the driver of Sikandar Das. 7. It has been submitted by Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, learned counsel for the appellant that there are no witnesses to the occurrence and the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. All the witnesses examined are related to the deceased and hence interested witnesses. The learned trial court has committed an error while acquitting Lalita Devi and Jitendra Ravidas and at the same time convicting the appellant despite the fact that the confessional statement of Lalita Devi and Jitendra Ravidas have corroborated with the evidence of PW-8 (I.O.). The witnesses have stated that the relationship between the deceased and the appellant was cordial which also extinguishes the motive for committing the murder. Mr. Roy has submitted that there has been an inordinate delay of four days in lodging the First Information Report and during the intervening period no missing complaint was made of the deceased which again throws a spanner in the case of the prosecution. The recovery of the dead body was from the joint confessional statement of the appellant, Lalita Devi and Jitendra Ravidas, but despite the same a different yardstick has been applied to the case of the appellant. 8. Learned APP has submitted that chain of circumstances is complete on account of the fact that on the confession of the appellant, the dead body was recovered and the vehicle of the deceased was also found in the possession of the appellant. The evidence of the prosecution clearly reveals that the appellant and the deceased had left in the same car and this further strengthens the case of the prosecution. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides and have also perused the trial court records. 10. It transpires from the evidence of the witnesses that the deceased and his family members along with the appellant who was the driver of the car had gone to attend the marriage ceremony of the son of DW-1. In the midst of the function both the deceased and the appellant left on the Alto car of the deceased while his family members stayed back. PW-2 is the father of the deceased who had returned back to his house on the next day i.e. 14.05.2021 9 and when he could not contact his son, they had gone to the house of the appellant on 15.05.2021, but he was found missing with the Alto car. This aroused a suspicion in the mind of the family members of the deceased which led to institution of an F.I.R. by PW-1. It is no doubt true that most of the witnesses are related to the deceased and their evidence has to be scrutinized with more circumspection. None of the witnesses have exaggerated the incident and have simply stated about the deceased leaving with the appellant in the midst of the marriage function. PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 PW-5 and PW-7 have been consistent with respect to the deceased having been last seen with the appellant. This chain of circumstances is complete, when we peruse the evidence of PW-8 (I.O.). PW-8 has categorically stated that on a secret information, the appellant was apprehended along with the Maruti Alto car of the deceased and the mobile and SIM of the deceased were recovered from his possession. On the pointing out by the appellant, the decomposed dead body of the deceased was recovered. The appellant has not given any suitable explanation with respect to the recoveries effected in his 313 Cr.P.C. statement. The learned trial court has meticulously dealt with each of the circumstances highlighted against the appellant and has rightly come to a conclusion that the chain has been complete, thereby holding the appellant guilty for the offences u/s 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. We do not find any reason to conclude otherwise and consequently, we dismiss this appeal. Pending I.As., if any stands closed. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY,J.) (DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 15th April, 2026 MK/N.A.F.R. Uploaded on 18.4.2026