Jharkhand High Court
Darbari Soren vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 May, 2026
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
2026:JHHC:13511-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1541 of 2004
[Against the judgment of conviction dated 18.03.2004 and sentence dated
22.03.2004, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Godda in S.T. No. 36 of 2000.]
--------
1. Darbari Soren, S/o. Lathu Soren;
2. Lakhi Ram Soren, S/o. Late Lakhu Soren;
Both are resident of Village- Makundi Dikwani, P.S.-Godda(M), District-
Godda. ... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
With
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1621 of 2004
--------
1. Babujee Murmu, Son of Late Chunu Murmu;
2. Parmay Murmu, Son of Sita Ram Murmu;
Both are resident of Village- Makundi, Dikwani, P.S.-Godda(M), District-
Godda. ... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
With
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1723 of 2004
--------
1. Saheb Soren, Son of Darbari Soren
2. Jerman Soren, Son of Sakhla Soren.
Both are resident of Mukandi, Dikwani, P.S.-Godda(M), District-Godda.
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-----
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
--------
For the Appellants : Mr. Ashish Kr. Thakur, Advocate
: Mr. Manoj Kr. Sah, Advocate
: Ms. Kabisha Goenka, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P.
: Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P.
--------
JUDGEMENT
C.A.V. on 09.04.2026 Pronounced on 06 /05/2026
Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J:
1. Above Criminal Appeals are arising out of the common judgment passed
by the learned Sessions Judge, Godda in S.T. No. 36 of 2000, dated 18.03.2004
/ 22.03.2004, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for
the offences under Sections 147, 307/148 & 302/149 of the I.P.C. and
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section
302/149 of the I.P.C.; R.I. for 7 years for the offence under Section 307/148 of
the I.P.C. and R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 147 of the I.P.C.
All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.
Factual Matrix:-
2. Factual matrix giving rise to these appeals is that on 14.01.2000 at about
6:00 P.M., while the informant Jairam Murmu alongwith other family members
were sitting in front of their house, meanwhile all the above appellants came
there and asked for participating in dance on the eve of Bandhana festival, but
they refused to participate in the dance due to some differences going on
between the parties. It is alleged that due to refusal from participation in the
dance, the aforesaid accused persons infuriated and started dashing and pulling
them, which was protested by the informant. It is further alleged that the
accused persons went to their house and again returned with lathi, garasa and
sabbal, etc., and started assaulting to the informant party. It is further alleged
that accused Lakhi Ram Soren assaulted to Mangal Murmu with lathi on head,
accused Sita Ram Soren assaulted by lathi to Chand Muni Hansda, accused
Saheb Soren assaulted to Sanjhali Murmu by Sabbal, accused Bhaiya Soren
and Babujee Murmu assaulted to Bihari Murmu by lathi and sabbal
2|Page
respectively and accused Jarman Soren and Betka Murmu assaulted to TalamaiMurmu by lathi on her head. All the accused persons were assaulting with
intention to kill them. It is further alleged that during course of assault, Suraj
Murmu came for rescue to the aforesaid injured persons, then Darbari Soren,
Sita Ram Soren, Betka Murmu, Saheb Soren, Jarman Soren and Lakhiram
Soren assaulted him by lathi, Garasa, and Sabbal on his head, due to which he
died in the course of treatment at Sadar Hospital, Godda.
3. On the basis of above information, Godda (M) P.S. Case No. 18 of 2000
was registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307 &
302 of the I.P.C. Charge of investigation was received by S.I. Sri Nageshwar
Das (PW-7). The injured were sent to Sadar Hospital, Godda for medical
examination and dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem
examination.
4. The Investigation Officer, after completion of the investigation
submitted charge-sheet against altogether nine accused persons, out of them
one Bhaiya Soren died during pendency of trial and accused Sita Ram Murmu
has died during the pendency of this appeal and his appeal has been abated by
order dated 24.04.2025. The accused persons denied from the charges and
claimed to be tried.
5. The learned Trial Court, after evaluating the evidence available on
record, recorded findings about guilt of the appellants. Accordingly, convicted
and sentenced to them as stated above, which has been assailed in these
appeals.
Submission on behalf of the appellants:-
6. Assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the appellants has
contended that the witnesses examined by the prosecution have given different
story regarding manner of occurrence and the actual role played by the
3|Page
appellants in assaulting the injured persons and the deceased. There are generaland omnibus allegations against all the appellants. All the family members and
well wishers of the appellants have been falsely roped in this case due to
previous enmity. There is no reason to believe that when the appellants were
already under inimical terms with the informant party, then they would come to
informant’s house and requested them for participation on the dance organised
on the occasion of Bandhana festival. Therefore, the genesis of occurrence is
not believable at all. The learned Trial Court has committed serious error of law
while placing reliance upon contradictory testimony of the witnesses while
arriving at conclusion.
In the alternative, it is also argued that all the appellants have remained
in custody during trial of the case for more than 08 years. The genesis and
manner of occurrence including the manner of assault does not warrant
invoking the ingredients of Section 302 of the I.P.C. The occurrence has taken
place in a sudden manner without pre-meditation and there was no intention to
cause death of any particular person including the deceased who intervened in
the matter as outsider and at the spur of moment, was assaulted, although,
resulting in his death. At best, the offence committed by the appellants falls
under Section 304 Part-II of the I.P.C. for which maximum sentence is R.I. for
10 years. The appellants have already undergone imprisonment for more than 8
years during trial of the case and have sufficiently been punished for their guilt.
In this view of the matter, the conviction of the appellants for the offence under
Section 302/149 of the I.P.C. requires to be altered/modified under Section 304
Part-II of the I.P.C. and the appellants may be awarded the sentence of
imprisonment already undergone by them, which is more than 8 years.
Submission on behalf of the State:-
4|Page
7. On the other hand, learned A.P.Ps. for the State have defended the
impugned judgment on merits and submitted that all the appellants have acted
in concerted manner forming an unlawful assembly. Although, the dispute crept
on the ground of taking participation in dance on the occasion of Bandhana
festival but upon refusal of the informant party, all the appellants went to their
home and returned again lashed with dangerous weapons and assaulted to the
informant party causing severe injuries to several persons. Therefore,
conviction and sentence of the appellants does not suffer from an illegality or
infirmity calling for any interference in these appeals, which is fit to be
dismissed.
8. On the basis of respective arguments of the learned counsels for the
parties and from perusal of impugned judgment, the only point for
consideration emerges in these appeals, as to “whether the impugned
judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants suffers from any
error of law?”
Analysis, discussions and reasons:-
9. Before imparting our verdict on the above point, it is apposite to take
brief resume of ocular testimony of witnesses examined for proper adjudication
of the above issue. In the course of trial, altogether 09 witnesses were
examined by prosecution:-
P.W.-1 Dr. G. P. Pandey
P.W.-2 Chandmuni Hansda
P.W.-3 Mangal Murmu
P.W.-4 Munilal Tudu
P.W.-5 Sanjhali Murmu
P.W.-6 Talamai Tudu
P.W.-7 Sri Nageshwar Das (Investigating Officer)
5|Page
P.W.-8 Sakal TuduP.W.-9 Dr. Ashok Kumar
10. Apart from the oral testimony of witnesses, following documentary
evidence has been adduced:-
Exhibit-1- Injury report of Mangal Murmu
Exhibit-2-Fardbeyan of the Informant
Exhibit-3-Formal F.I.R.
Exhibit-4- Inquest Report of deceased Suraj Murmu
Exhibit-5 & 5/1- Injury report of injured Chandmuni Hansda and Sanjhali
Murmu
Exhibit-6-Postmortem report of deceased Suraj Murmu
11. PW-1 Dr. G. P. Pandey is the Medical Officer Incharge, Primary Health
Centre, Sahibganj, who has examined the injued Mangal Murmu on 14.01.2000 at
about 7:45 P.M. and found the following injuries on his person:-
(a) Incised wound 3″ x ½” x scalp deep on right side of head.
Nature of injury was opined to be simple caused by sharp cutting
weapon within 6 hours.
The injury report was marked as Exhibit-1
PW-9 Dr. Ashok Kumar has examined the injured Chandmuni Hansda on
14.01.2000 at about 9:40 P.M. and found the following injuries:-
I. Lacerated wound on the left occipital area of scalp 1 ¼” x ¼” x ¼”
II. Bruise right shoulder in its top with tenderness 1 ½” x ¾”
Both the injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance and were
simple in nature caused within 12 hours.
The injury report was marked as Exhibit-5.
On the same day at about 9:10 P.M., this witness examined the
injured Sanjhali Murmu, D/o. Mangal Murmu and found the
following injuries:-
6|Page
I. Lacerated wound on the left parietal area posteriorly size 1″ x ¼” x¼”
II. Mark, swelling, pain with tenderness on the left forearm. X-ray was
advised.
Injury report was marked as Exhibit-5/1.
On 15.01.2000 at 12:30 P.M., he conducted post-mortem
examination on the dead body of deceased Suraj Murmu and found the
following on his person:-
Anti-mortem injuries:-
1. Sharp cut wound on right parietal area in A/p direction size 3″ x
¼” x ¼”
2. Almost a sharp wound on right parietal area lateral to the injury
no. 1 size 2 ¼” x ¼” x ¼”.
3. Lacerated wound on right parietal occipital area, size 2″ x ¼” x
¼”.
On Dis-section:-
Large amount of clotted blood underneath the skin in fascia on
right parietal temporo occipital area of scalp. There were blood
clots in the above mentioned lobes of brain and meanings. Heart
was empty. Spleen was moderately large size. Stomach had about
300 grams of partially digested food material.
Probable time since death- 24 hours.
Opinion:-
The cause of death is opined to be due to shock and blooding as a
result of above mentioned ante-mortem injury.
He has proved this post-mortem report as Exhibit-6.
PW-2 Chandmuni Hansda is one of the injured. She has categorically
deposed that on the date of occurrence, she was sitting alongwith the family
7|Page
members. The accused persons came there and requested for taking part in danceon the occasion of Bandhan festival, which was declined by the informant party.
Thereafter, all the accused persons started assaulting them by lathi, garasa, sabbal
and other weapons. She also admits that prior to this occurrence, some dispute
had taken place between the parties due to scuffle between the children. That was
the main reason for this occurrence. She also admits that the dance had started and
she was also present there and at about 6:00 A.M., at the time of dance some
scuffle took place and both the parties had consumed Haria (Rice Liquor) on the
occasion of Bandhana festival. She has also not stated the name of the accused
persons as to who had assaulted her. Her injury also does not correspond with the
manner of occurrence as stated by her. Her husband Suraj Murmu was also
assaulted, who died during the course of treatment but she has failed to state as to
who had assaulted her husband.
PW-3 Mangal Murmu is another injured. He has also stated that sudden
scuffle took place between the parties on the occasion of Bandhana festival, when
they declined to participate in the dance. Although, this witness was also injured in
the said occurrence, but he has not disclosed the name of his assailant.
PW-4 Munilal Tudu has claimed to be present on the occasion of
Bandhana festival in his sasural at village Mukundi. The scuffle took place
between the informant party and the accused persons due to declining from taking
part in dance on the occasion of Bandhan festival. Thereafter, the accused persons
assaulted the informant party causing injuries to Mangal Murmu, his wife, Suraj
Murmu and others. In the said occurrence, Suraj Murmu died.
PW-5 Sanjhali Murmu is also an injured witness, who has stated that
Shahebram assaulted her on head and her father was assaulted by Lakhi Ram,
Darbari, Jarman, Betka, etc., by sabbal. Therefore, she has proved the occurrence
and the manner of assault.
8|Page
PW-6 Talamai Tudu has also proved the occurrence which happened dueto not taking part in the dance on the occasion of Bandhana festival by the
informant party. She was also present there. In the course of scuffle, Suraj Murmu
was assaulted by Darbari Soren, Saheb Soren, Jarman Soren, Lakh Ram Soren,
Gulu Soen and Pranay Murmu. She was also assaulted by lathi by Pranay Murmu.
Sanjhali Murmu was also assaulted by Saheb Soren. Sona had also received injury
and Surja Murmu died.
PW-8 Sakal Tudu is a hearsay witness, who has only heard about the
murder of deceased Suraj Murmu.
PW-7 Sri Nageshwar Das is the Investigating Officer of this case. This
witness has proved the fardbeyan of the informant as Exhibit-2 and formal F.I.R.
as Exhibit-3. The charge of the investigation was given to this witness, then he
recorded re-statement of injured Jairam Murmu and also visited the place of
occurrence. The place of occurrence is a Kachi Sadak near the house of the
informant. He has further proved the inquest report of the deceased Suraj Murmu
as Exhibit-4. He recorded the statement of witness. Thereafter, further charge of
investigation was handed over to the then Officer-in-Charge of Godda P.S., Sri A.
K. Sahi on 26.02.2000 due to transfer of this witness.
12. On the other hand, the case of defence is denial from occurrence and
false implication.
13. We have given thoughtful consideration to the testimony of the witnesses
as discussed above. It is quite obvious that the scuffle took place between the
parties in a sudden manner only due to declining by the informant party from
dancing on the occasion of Bandhana festival. The previous dispute is also
attributed on account of some scuffle between children of both the parties. The
injuries sustained by the injured persons, namely, PW-3 Mangal Murmu, PW-2
Chandmuni Hansda and PW-5 Sanjhali Murmu has been opined to be simple in
nature. The deceased Suraj Murmu, who died in the course of scuffle sustaining
9|Page
some injuries as discussed in the post-mortem report is also not opined to besufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The death was caused
due to shock and bleeding resulting from injuries.
14. Considering the cumulative effect of the circumstance as proved by the
prosecution witnesses, the ingredients of Section 302/149 are not attracted in this
case rather the injuries caused by the appellants to the injured and deceased may
be said to be caused without intention but with the knowledge that it was likely to
cause death, which falls under Section 299 of the I.P.C. In respect of other injured
persons, it is apparent that they have sustained simple injures caused by hard and
blunt substance and sharp weapon which falls under Section 323 and 324 of the
I.P.C. Therefore, it is not a case of murder punishable under Section 302 of the
I.P.C. rather it falls under Section 304 Part-II of the I.P.C. Since the prosecution
has also failed to prove that the appellants have gathered forming any unlawful
assembly at any point of time with object as defined under Section 141 of the
I.P.C., Section 147 of the I.P.C. is also not attracted.
15. It further transpires that the appellants have already undergone the
imprisonment for more than eight years during the pendency of the trial of the case
and therefore, they have been sufficiently punished for their guilt.
16. In view of the above discussion and reasons, we find substance in the
contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants and merits in these appeals.
Therefore, conviction and sentence of the appellants for the offence under Sections
302/149 and 307/148 of the I.P.C. is hereby altered/modified to the offence under
Section 304 Part-II of the I.P.C. Since the appellants have already remained in
custody for more than 8 years, therefore, the appellants are awarded sentence of
imprisonment already undergone instead of the sentence awarded by the learned
Trial Court.
17. In view of the above, these appeals are dismissed on merits with
modification in sentence as stated above.
10 | P a g e
18. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
19. Let a copy of this judgment sent to the concerned court for information and
needful.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)
(PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.)
Jharkhand High Court
Dated 06/05/2026
Rahul/ N. A. F. R.
Uploaded on 06/05/2026
11 | P a g e
[ad_1]
Source link
