Jharkhand High Court
Beni Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 August, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
2025:JHHC:25105-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 440 of 2002
[Against the Judgment of conviction dated 19.06.2002 and Order of
sentence dated 20.06.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Court, Gumla, in Sessions Trial No. 255 of 1988]
1. Beni Singh.
2. Tejan Singh.
Both are sons of Alkho Singh.
3. Ganpati Bhagat @ Lerhe Bhagat, Son of Gondra Bhagat.
4. Ram Nath Ram @ Ram Nath Rautiya, Son of Andha Ram
Rautiya.
5. Budhan Ram @ Budhan Ram Rautiya, Son of Jhomar
Rautiya.
6. Dhanpat Bhagat @ Houla Bhagat, Son of Gondra
Bhagat.
All are residents of Village - Uru, Police Station
- Chainpur, District - Gumla.
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
.....
For the Appellant No. 2 : Mr. Sunita Kumari, Advocate.
For the Appellant Nos. 3, 5 & 6 : Mr. K.S. Nanda, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl.P.P.
…….
P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
…..
Reserved On : 01.08.2025 Pronounced On : 25/08/2025
Per Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
1. Affidavit filed by the State reveals that appellant No. 1
namely, Beni Singh and appellant no. 4 namely, Ram
Nath Ram @ Ram Nath Rautiya have died during
pendency of this appeal.
2. Therefore, the appeal, so far as appellant no. 1
namely, Beni Singh and appellant no. 4 namely, Ram
1
2025:JHHC:25105-DB
Nath Ram @ Ram Nath Rautiya is concerned, stands
abated.
3. Now, the appeal is heard with respect to appellant
nos. 2, 3, 5 & 6 namely, Tejan Singh, Ganpati Bhagat
@ Lerhe Bhagat, Budhan Ram @ Budhan Ram
Rautiya and Dhanpat Bhagat @ Houla Bhagat.
4. The instant criminal appeal is preferred by the above-
named appellants for setting aside the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 19.06.2002 /
20.06.2002 passed by learned Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Gumla in Sessions
Trial No. 255 of 1988, whereby and whereunder, the
appellants have been held guilty for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
Appellants have further been held guilty for the
offence under Section 148 of the I.P.C. and sentenced
to undergo R.I. for three years and appellant no. 2,
Tejan Singh has also been held guilty for the offence
under Section 324 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for three years. All the sentences were
directed to run concurrently.
5. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the
informant Jivnath Singh (P.W.-6) lodged the F.I.R.
2
2025:JHHC:25105-DB
(Exhibit-7) at Chainpur Police Station stating inter
alia that on 06.05.1988 (Friday), his son Baijnath
Singh, aged about 25 years, went to Kashir Bazar and
at around 6:00 P.M., informant’s son was returning to
home and reached near the house of Budhan Ram
Rautiya (appellant no.5). Meanwhile, hearing hulla,
the informant along with his wife and other family
members came out of the house and reached near the
place of occurrence and saw that Beni Singh
(appellant no. 1) (since deceased) with the help of axe
and Tejan Singh (appellant no. 2) armed with tabela,
Budhan Ram Rautiya (appellant no. 5), Ram Nath
Ram Rautiya (appellant no.4) (since deceased), Lerhe
Bhagat, Hauwa Bhagat armed with lathi were
assaulting to informant’s son, Baijnath Singh.
It has further been alleged that informant along
with his family members tried to save their son, but
Tejan Singh assaulted the informant’s son by tabela
causing injury on his right eye and shoulder.
It has further been alleged that due to
indiscriminating assault given by axe, tabela and
danda, the informant’s son died on the spot. The
motive behind the occurrence is alleged that there
was some money dispute regarding cutting and selling
3
2025:JHHC:25105-DB
of Sakhuwa tree from Patkona Pahar in between his
son and Beni Singh. Tejan Singh is the brother of
Beni Singh. Other accused persons are friends and
supporter of Beni Singh.
6. The above information was given by the informant at
police station along with Village Choukidar and other
villagers on 07.05.1988 at around 9 A.M. Accordingly,
Chainpur P.S. Case No. 10/1988 was registered for
the offences under Sections 147, 148, 324, 302 of the
I.P.C.
7. After conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was
submitted against the aforesaid appellants. The case
was committed to the court of Sessions, where S.T.
No. 255/1988 was registered. The accused persons
denied the charges leveled against them and claimed
to be tried, therefore, trial proceeded.
8. In course of trial, altogether sixteen witnesses were
examined by the prosecution.
Apart from oral testimony of witnesses, following
documentary evidence have been adduced by the
prosecution:-
Exhibit-1 : Carbon copy of inquest report.
Exhibit-1/1 : Signature of witnesses on inquest
& 1/2 report.
4
2025:JHHC:25105-DB
Exhibit-2 : Signature of informant on the
FIR.
Exhibit-2/A : Signature of witnesses on FIR.
& 2/B
Exhibit-2/C : Signature of Officer-in-Charge on
FIR.
Exhibit-3 : Statement of Janak Ram Rautiya
recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C.
Exhibit-3/a Statement of Smt. Sumitra Devi
recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C.
Exhibit-3/b : Statement of Sarita Devi recorded
under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
Exhibit-3/c : Statement of Sawmi Devi
recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C.
Exhibit-4 : Seizure list.
Exhibit-4/A, : Signature of witnesses on seizure
4/B & 4/C list.
Exhibit-5 : Seizure list.
Exhibit-6 : Post-mortem Report.
Exhibit-7 : F.I.R.
Exhibit-8 : Written requisition by police
officer for medical examination of
Jiwanath Singh.
Exhibit-9 : Injury report of injured Jiwanath
Singh.
5
2025:JHHC:25105-DB
Exhibit-10 : Map of place of occurrence
prepared by I.O.
9. On the other hand, the case of defence is denial from
occurrence and false implication due to dispute or
enmity between Beni Singh and deceased regarding
cutting and selling of Sakhuwa tree as claimed by the
prosecution. No oral or documentary evidence has
been adduced by the defence.
10. The learned trial court, after evaluating and
scrutinizing the evidence led by the prosecution
recorded the finding of guilt of accused persons for
the aforesaid offences and sentenced them as stated
above.
11. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for
the appellant nos. 2, 3, 5 & 6 as well as learned
Spl.P.P. for the State and perused the record of the
case along with impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence in the light of submissions of
respective parties.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has
strenuously argued that the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence of the appellants is
erroneous and beyond the weight of evidence available
6
2025:JHHC:25105-DBon record and non-consideration of vital aspects of
the case. Learned counsel for the appellants has
pointed out following grounds of objection against the
impugned judgment:-
(i) All the witnesses are interested and close relative
of the deceased and none of them have seen the
occurrence, but projected themselves to be eye
witness of the occurrence.
(ii) The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the
genesis and manner and place of occurrence,
which was never appeared in front of house of
appellant – Budhan Ram Rautiya.
(iii) The informant himself admitted that at the time
of occurrence, except the deceased, all the family
members were in the house, but the mother,
brother and sisters of the deceased have
improved their testimony by saying that they
were also returning along with deceased and the
occurrence took place in their presence on
06.05.1988 at about 6 P.M., but no information
was given to Police or any of the Villagers about
the said occurrence and the FIR was lodged in
the next day morning i.e. on 07.05.1988 at about
9 A.M. without any explanation.
7
2025:JHHC:25105-DB
(iv) It is admitted that the deceased had gone to
market along with his friends and the name of
three friends have been disclosed by the
witnesses, who have not been examined by the
prosecution.
(v) The evidence of prosecution witnesses also does
not find corroboration from post mortem report
of the deceased, wherein all the injuries are
found to be caused by sharp cutting weapon like
tangi, none of the injuries have been opined to be
caused by tabela or any hard and blunt
substance like lathi.
(vi) The prosecution has also failed to prove the
motive behind the occurrence as alleged in the
FIR.
(vii) There is no iota of evidence at all that all the
appellants have conjointly perpetrated in the
alleged occurrence with any common intention or
at any point of time, they have formed any
unlawful assembly or there was any common
object in prosecution of which, the occurrence
was caused by the members of unlawful
assembly.
8
2025:JHHC:25105-DB
(viii) The trial court has also not framed charge for the
offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. against all
the appellants with aid of Section 34 or Section
149 of the I.P.C. There is no whisper about
presence of any of the common object of the
appellants as defined under Section 141 of the
I.P.C.
(ix) In alternative, it is argued that all the injuries
caused to the deceased are found to be incised
wound, but there is no whisper that different
weapons were used in causing such injuries.
There are direct evidence for causing injuries by
axe against the Beni Singh and the informant
has sustained simple injuries by tabela caused
by appellant Tejan Singh and who has been
separately punished for offence under Section
324 of the I.P.C. and actually undergone three
years imprisonment during trial of the case.
Since, there was no injury caused by lathi to any
of the injured, therefore, allegation against other
appellants namely, Ganpati Bhagat @ Lerhe
Bhagat, Ram Nath Ram @ Ram Nath Rautiya,
Budhan Ram @ Budhan Ram Rautiya and
Dhanpat Bhagat @ Houla Bhagar is palpably
9
2025:JHHC:25105-DB
false and fabricated story. The prosecution has
also failed to bring on record any motive behind
the occurrence against other appellants. The
main assailant Beni Singh has been died and
Tejan Singh has undergone imprisonment of
three years for the offence under Section 324 of
the I.P.C., therefore, this appeal is fit to be
allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment
of conviction and order of sentence of the
appellants.
13. Per contra, learned Spl.P.P. opposed the aforesaid
contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and
submits that the learned trial court has very wisely
and in threadbare manner analyzed the evidence led
by prosecution and arrived at right conclusion. There
is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of witnesses
examined in this case. The role played by the
appellants has been proved by prosecution to the hilt.
There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned
judgment, calling for any inference in this appeal,
which is devoid of merit and fit to be dismissed.
14. The only point for consideration in this appeal as to
whether the impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence of appellants suffers from any error
10
2025:JHHC:25105-DB
of law, calling for any interference by way of this
appeal?
15. We have gone through the evidence adduced by the
prosecution along with record of the case and the
impugned judgment in the light of submission of the
respective parties.
16. It appears that admittedly occurrence took place on
06.05.1988 at about 6 PM, but the FIR was lodged on
07.05.1988 at about 9 AM. It is admitted in FIR that
at the time of occurrence, the informant along with
his wife, daughter-in-law, daughter was present in the
house and after hearing hulla came out from their
house and proceeded near the house of Budhan
Rautiya and saw that the accused persons were
assaulting to his son Baijnath Singh by tangi, tabela
and lathi, due to which, he died on the spot.
17. P.W.-1 : Smt. Shawani Devi is the wife of the
informant-cum-mother of the deceased. According to
her evidence, on the date of occurrence at about 7:00
PM, she had gone to Kashir market along with her son
Baijnath Singh. She was returning from market along
with her son, who was at some distance behind her.
She also saw Beni Singh, Tejan Singh, Ganpati Singh,
Ram Nath Rautiya, Budhan Rautiya and Dhanpat
11
2025:JHHC:25105-DB
Bhagat in the way to her home, who were at saying
that they have to kill Baijnath Singh. Therefore, she
returned to home and again along with her grandson,
daughter-in-law and daughter went near Tirmarukh
river and saw that her son was coming along with his
friends and when they were about to reach their
home, meanwhile, Ram Nath Singh and Budhan
Singh stopped them and attempted to assault by
danda, which was warded off by her, then the
accused persons started assaulted her son Baijnath
Singh. She has specifically stated that Beni Singh has
axe, Tejan Singh with tabela and other accused
persons armed with danda. The occurrence took place
in front of house of Budhan Ram. She has denied any
motive behind the occurrence as alleged in the FIR.
In her cross-examination, she has also claimed
that Beni Singh gave first assault by axe to her son
and other accused persons were assaulting by lathi
and tabela. In her cross-examination, she also states
that when her son fell down due to sustaining
injuries, she did not go there to see the injuries.
18. P.W.-2 : Sewak Baiga is a hearsay witness, who
heard hulla and went towards the house of Budhan
and saw the dead body of Baijnath Singh. He also
12
2025:JHHC:25105-DB
states that father and mother of the deceased were
present there, but none of them disclosed about the
assailant of the deceased.
19. P.W.-3 : Smt. Sumitra Devi is the sister of the
deceased. She has corroborated the testimony of her
mother (P.W.-1) stating that her mother returned from
the market and saw that accused persons were
desiring to kill Baijnath, then she along with her
mother and other family members went at the place of
occurrence and saw the accused persons were
assaulting her brother, but she has not stated any
specific overt act against any of the accused persons.
20. P.W.-4 : Sarita Devi is the wife of the deceased. She
has given a different story stating that her mother-in-
law returned from Kashir market and told that
Budhan Ram is concealing himself to assault Baijnath
Singh. She has also given a different story as an eye
witness that when she along with her family members
reached near the house of Budhan Ram, they saw
that Budhram and Ram Nath on the point of danda
have stopped her husband and also assaulted by
danda. Her husband warded off the danda blow from
his hand, then Beni Singh, Tejan Singh, Haba Oraon
and Lehre Oraon also arrived there. She further states
13
2025:JHHC:25105-DB
that Beni started assaulting by tangi and Tejan by
tabela to her husband, Ledhe, Budhan, Ram Nath
and Haba were assaulting by danda. Her husband fell
on the earth and died on the spot.
In her cross-examination, she has further given a
new fact that her mother-in-law and husband had
also gone to market. When her mother-in-law
returned, then she started cooking.
21. P.W.-5 : Musa Lakra is a witness of inquest report
and proved his signature on inquest report, marked
as Exhibit-1/1 and signature of another witness
Ishwar Sahay Kujur as Exhibit-1/2.
22. P.W.-6 : Jiva Nath Singh is the informant. According
to his evidence, his wife and son had gone to market.
He along with his daughter-in-law and elder daughter
were present in the house. His wife returned from
market and told that accused persons are planning to
kill their son, then he along with other family
members went towards the house of Budhram Oraon,
which is situated adjacent to his house. According to
his evidence, Beni Singh gave axe blow to his son
Baijnath and Tejan Singh assaulted by tabela. When
he wanted to save his son, Tejan Singh also assaulted
him by tabela causing injuries near ear and other
14
2025:JHHC:25105-DB
accused persons assaulted by lathi. His son died on
the spot.
23. P.W.-7 : Javir Oraon is the formal witness, who has
proved the statements of witnesses Janak Ram
Rawatiya, Smt. Sumitra Devi and Smt. Sarita Devi
and Shawani Devi, which is marked as Exhibit-3 to
3/C. He appears to be not a competent witness to
prove the aforesaid statements.
24. P.W.-8 : Onkar Nath Sinha, Judicial Magistrate, 1 st
Class, Deoghar, who recorded the statement under
Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and has proved Exhibit-3
to 3/C, earlier marked as Exhibits.
25. P.W.-9 : Arawat Singh is a witness of seizure list
Exhibit-4 & 4/a. According to his evidence, the police
has seized the slipper in front of house of Jhagru
Rautiya and blood-stained earth and seizure list was
prepared.
26. P.W.-10 : Mohan Singh is another witness of seizure
list, who has proved his signature as Exhibit-4/b.
27. P.W.-11 : Nathanial Kuzur is another witness of
seizure list, but he has denied any seizure in his
presence and only proved his signature on seizure
list, marked as Exhibit-5.
15
2025:JHHC:25105-DB
28. P.W.-12 : Ishwar Sahani Kuzur has been tendered
for prosecution and not supported the prosecution.
29. P.W.-13 : Balkumar Ram has stated that on the date
of occurrence at about 8:00 PM, he was taking dinner,
meanwhile, he heard hulla in the village and the
villagers called him, then he went near the house of
Jhagru Rautiya, where he saw the dead body of
Baijnath Singh. He has further stated that Jiv Nath
Singh (informant) told him that Tejan Singh, Beni
Singh, Budhan Khetia, Ram Khetia, Ledhe Bhagat
and Haba Bhagat have assaulted to Baijnath Singh.
He has proved his signature on the FIR marked as
Exhibit-2/a. Admittedly, he was not the eye witness of
the occurrence.
30. P.W.-14 : Chotan Munda has also proved his
signature on the FIR as Exhibit-2/b and not an eye-
witness of the occurrence, rather declared hostile by
the prosecution.
31. P.W.-15 Dr. Raj Kumar Beck has conducted autopsy
on the dead body of Baijnath Singh, aged about 25
years on 08.05.1988 at about 11:00 AM and then
found following:-
(i) Incised wound 2.1/2″ x ¾” x ½” on the occipital
region.
16
2025:JHHC:25105-DB
(ii) Incised wound 3″ x 1″ x 1.1/4″ on the right
upper side of neck with cutting carpeted vessels
artery and vein.
(iii) Incised wound 2″ x ½” x ¾” on left upper side of
the neck.
(iv) Incised wound 1.1/2″ x ½” x ½” on the chin.
(v) Incised wound 3″ x ½” x ¾” above the left
scapular side.
All the above injuries were ante mortem in
nature and injury no. (ii) was grievous and the
rest were simple in nature. All the injuries were
caused by same sharp cutting instrument e.g.
Tangi and Tabela. Injury No. (ii) was sufficient to
cause death in ordinary course of nature; cause
of death shock and hemorrhage as a result of
above injuries. He has proved the post mortem
report as Exhibit-6. He has specifically admitted
in his cross-examination that above injuries
cannot be caused by lathi. He has also failed to
state as to above injuries were from same
weapon or by different weapon.
32. P.W.-16 : S.I. Ram Pukar Singh is the Investigating
Officer of the case. He has proved the FIR as Exhibit-
7. After registration of FIR, he undertook the charge of
17
2025:JHHC:25105-DB
investigation of the case. He recorded re-statement of
the informant and interrogated other witnesses and
also obtained injury report and post-mortem report of
the deceased. He went to the place of occurrence and
prepared inquest report in presence of witnesses and
also seized slipper, blood-stained earth in presence of
witnesses from the place of occurrence, which is
marked as Exhibit-4. He also prepared sketch map of
place of occurrence, marked as Exhibit-10. He also
obtained post mortem report of the deceased.
According to him, place of occurrence is situated in
front of house of accused Budhan Ram and Ram Nath
Rautiya.
In his cross-examination, he has admitted that
witness Shawani Devi (P.W.-1), mother of the
deceased has stated before him that on 06.05.1988
(Friday) at about 7 PM, she was in her house.
Similarly, informant Jiva Nath Singh has stated
before him that his son had gone to Koshir Bazar on
Friday and at about 7 PM, he was returning to home
then he heard alarm of his son and he along with his
wife, daughter-in-law and daughter went there. It is
further stated that at the time of occurrence,
informant along with his wife, daughter-in-law and
18
2025:JHHC:25105-DB
daughter were present in the house. The seized
materials have not been produced and marked as
material exhibits.
33. From the aforesaid discussions of ocular testimony of
the witnesses, it is apparent that out of total 16
witnesses examined in this case by the prosecution
only P.W.-1, Smt. Shawani Devi, P.W.-3, Smt.
Sumitra Devi, P.W.-4, Sarita Devi and P.W.-6 Jiva
Nath Singh have claimed to be eye-witness of
occurrence and all other witnesses are either
witnesses of inquest, seizure list, hearsay and
Investigating Officer and Doctor. It is also quite
obvious that the aforesaid eye witnesses are close
relatives of the deceased.
There is clear cut version in the FIR, which has
been lodged by none else, but father of the deceased,
that at the time of occurrence, informant along with
his wife, daughter and daughter-in-law were present
at their home at about 6 PM. They heard hulla from
their house raised by son of informant coming from
the house of Budhan Ram. They rushed there and
saw that Beni Singh was assaulting to his son by axe,
Tejan Singh by tabela and other accused persons
were assaulting by lathi. They attempted to save their
19
2025:JHHC:25105-DB
son, but Tejan Singh also assaulted by tabela to
informant, causing injuries on his right eye and
shoulder. The son of the informant sustained severe
injuries and died on the spot. The motive for crime is
attributed against Beni Singh regarding money
dispute in respect of cutting and selling of Sakhuwa
tree from Patkona Pahar. The FIR was lodged after
lapse of 15 hours from the occurrence. Although, the
police station is alleged to be situated at a distance of
35 km., but there is no iota of evidence from any
corner as to from the time of said occurrence, where
dead body of deceased was lying and who was taking
care of the dead body.
34. The version contained in the FIR as regards manner of
occurrence, place of occurrence and attributability of
assault against the appellants suffers from material
contradictions in the evidence of ocular testimony of
witnesses. The claim of informant that he has also
suffered injuries by tabela caused by Tejan Singh, but
no injury report has been proved by Medical Officer,
rather Exhibit-8 & 9 is marked on evidence of I.O. The
post mortem report of the deceased (Exhibit-6) also
shows that all the injuries are incised wounds caused
by sharp cutting weapon and none of the injuries
20
2025:JHHC:25105-DB
have been caused by lathi as alleged by the witnesses.
There is also no evidence at all as to all injuries
sustained by deceased have been caused by same
weapon or by different weapon. P.W.-1 has stated that
she had also gone to market with her son and
returned earlier to him where in the way she saw
accused persons were talking to eliminate her son,
but she without making any response straight
forward returned to her home and thereafter went
near Trimarukh river along with her daughter-in-law,
grandson and daughter. Therefore, she has given
serious jolt to the evidence of her husband (P.W.-6) ,
who has also improved the version contained in the
FIR and stated that his wife returned from the market
and told that the accused persons are intending to kill
his son, then he went to the house of Budhan Ram
where incident was going on. He also sustained
injuries caused by tabela by Tejan Singh while
rescuing his son. P.W.-3 Sumitra Devi, sister of the
deceased and P.W.-4 Sarita Devi, wife of the deceased
have also given different story regarding manner of
occurrence. It further transpires that except in the
FIR, no motive of occurrence has been assigned
against appellants.
21
2025:JHHC:25105-DB
35. We further find that the seized materials of this case
e.g. slipper, blood-stained earth were not sent for
chemical examination to FSL to corroborate the
prosecution story regarding origin of blood stains
either blood of deceased or the accused persons. The
same has not been produced as material exhibits.
36. We further find that the learned trial court has failed
to consider as regard to any unlawful assembly
constituted by the appellants and what was its object.
There is also no whisper that all the appellants have
acted in a concerted manner. The learned trial court
has also failed to consider that all the injuries caused
by sharp cutting weapon. The ocular testimony of
witnesses appears to be inherently unreliable in view
of self-contradictory statements given by them as
regards manner of assault and the place of
occurrence. Under such circumstances, the testimony
of relative / partisan witnesses requires to be
corroborated from some independent source, which is
absolutely lacking in this case. The cumulative effect
of circumstances proved by the prosecution clearly
leads to conclusion that none of the witnesses have
seen the occurrence on the fateful date, rather after
murder of the deceased, they have come to know
22
2025:JHHC:25105-DB
about the occurrence on the next day morning and
went to police station and lodged the FIR at 9:00 AM.
The appellants have been implicated in this case only
on the basis of suspension which never culminated
into legal prove of the occurrence.
37. In view of aforesaid discussion and reasons, we are of
the firm view that the learned trial court has failed to
properly appreciate the material aspects of the case
and wrongly placed reliance upon the testimony of the
alleged eye witnesses, who happens to be close
relative of the deceased. Although there is no legal
impediment to convict the accused persons on the
basis of testimony of related witnesses, but at the
same time, their testimony requires to be considered
very cautiously and sparingly. Any reasonable doubt
appearing in the evidence of witnesses to disbelieve
their testimony is sufficient to discard their evidence.
In the instant case, the testimony of eye witnesses
suffers from inherent improbabilities, material
contradictions and improvements as regards the very
genesis, manner and place of occurrence, which does
not find corroboration from any independent source.
Therefore, we are constrained to hold that the
prosecution has miserably failed to substantiate the
23
2025:JHHC:25105-DB
charges leveled against the appellants and the learned
trial court has convicted the appellants on the basis of
improper evaluation of evidence. Accordingly, we set
aside the impugned judgment of conviction and
sentence of the appellants.
38. This appeal is allowed and the appellants are
acquitted from the charges leveled against them.
Appellants are directed to be set at liberty forthwith.
39. Appellants are on bail, as such, they are discharged
from the liability of bail bonds and sureties are also
discharged.
40. Pending I.A., if any, stand disposed of.
41. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court
record be sent back to the court concerned for
information and needful.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated, the 25 t h August, 2025.
Sunil /N.A.F.R.
24