Jharkhand High Court
Kameshwar Yadav @ Kamleshwar Yadav @ … vs State Of Jharkhand on 12 March, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2026:JHHC:6726-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1671 of 2017
------
[Against the Judgment of conviction dated 09.03.2017 and order of
sentence dated 20.03.2017, passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-II, Lohardaga, in Sessions Trial Case No. 85 of 2016,]
—–
Kameshwar Yadav @ Kamleshwar Yadav @ Kiddu Yadav, son of
Jhumak Yadav, resident of village Pandaria, PO and PS Balumath,
District Latehar. …. … Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand. … … Respondent
—–
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
——-
For the Appellant : Mr.Soumitra Baroi, Advocate;
Ms. Sugandha Khalkho,Advocate;
Mr. Janki Kumar Yadav, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, S.P.P.
For the Informant : Ms. Divya, Advocate;
Ms.Isha Kaushik, Acvocate
[AC to Mr.Sameer Saurabh, Advocate]
——
CAV ON:10/02/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:12/03/2026
[Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.]
1. The present Appeal has been filed under section 374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure against the judgment of conviction dated 09.03.2017
and order of sentence dated 20.03.2017, passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-II,Lohardaga, in Sessions Trial Case No. 85 of 2016,
whereby and whereunder, the learned Trial court has convicted the
appellant under sections 148, 149/364, 149/379, 302 of the Indian Penal
Code and u/s 27 of Arms Act and section 17(2) of C.L.A. Act and
sentenced him to undergo RI for life with fine of Rs.10,000/- under
section 364 r/w 149 and under section 302 of the IPC with default
stipulation of RI for three months. The appellant is further sentenced to
1
2026:JHHC:6726-DB
undergo RI for three years u/s 379 r/w 149 and u/s 148 of the IPC. The
appellant is further sentenced to undergo RI for three years and fine of
Rs. 10,000 under section 27Arms Act and in default he shall further
undergo RI for three months and he is further sentenced to undergo RI
for three years u/s 17(2) of the C.L.A. Act. All the sentences were
directed to run concurrently.
Prosecution Case:
2. This Court, before proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, deems it fit and proper
to refer the background of institution of prosecution case.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, on the basis of fardbeyan of the
informant Lal Pradeep Nath Sahdeo (PW-7)is that on 20.3.2015 at about
05:00 p.m. the informant alongwith his father Lal Jai Kishore Nath
Sahdeo, uncle Lal Bal Kishore Nath Sahdeo, Pramod Nath Sahdeo,
Arvind Nath Sahdeo, Praveen Nath Sahdeo along with co-villager
Phuddin, Ravi etc had gone to Marayan forest where they had cultivable
lands. During the night they stayed in a hut in the forest and they were
also armed with licensed gun. On 21.3.2015 at about 05:00 p.m. the
informant along with Arvind and Praveen were strolling at a little
distance from the hut whereas his father Lal Kishore Nath Sahdeo, uncle
Lal Bal Kishore Nath Sahdeo and cousin Lal Pramod Nath Sahdeo were
in the hut.
4. The informant further stated that he saw from a distance that MCC
extremists variously armed had surrounded the hut. The informant hid
himself and saw that Kameshwar Yadav of the MCC Squad was talking
2
2026:JHHC:6726-DB
with Madan Yadav on his phone. After sometime the Maoist took his
father, uncle and cousin towards Sahedapat under captivity. The
informant and others somehow reached their village in the late night and
informed about the incident to the familymembers.
5. In the morning on 22.3.2015 a search was made after which dead
bodies of Jai Kishore Nath Sahdeo, Lal Bal Kishore Nath Sahdeo and
cousin Lal Pramod Nath Sahdeo were recovered in between Marayan
forest and Sahedapat. All the three persons were murdered by causing
fire arm injury.
6. The informant has further stated that the Maoist had stolen away two
licensed rifle and 100 pieces of cartridges. Further some empty
cartridges were also recovered from the place of occurrence. The dead
bodies were carried to the village where the police arrived upon getting
the information of the occurrence and simultaneously fardbeyan was
recorded. The motive behind the occurrence is stated to be that the
families of the deceased were in opposition with the extremists.
7. On the basis of the fardbeyanof the informant, Jobang P.S. Case
No.02 of 2015 dated 22.3.2015 was registered under sections 147/ 148/
149 /342/ 364/ 302/ 379 IPC and u/s 27 Arms Act and section 17 of
C.L.A. Act.
8. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet dated 07.06.2016 was
submitted against the accused/appellant and cognizance of the said
offences was taken under sections147/ 148/ 149 /342/ 364/ 302/ 379 IPC
and u/s 27 Arms Act and section 17 of C.L.A. Act. Thereafter, case was
committed to the court of Sessions.
3
2026:JHHC:6726-DB
9. Charges were framed against the appellant under sections 148,
149/364, 149/302, 149/379 IPC and u/s 27 Arms Act and section 17 of
C.L.A. Act, the contents of which were read over and explained to the
accused in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
10. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, had examined
altogether nine witnesses. Out of which PW-1 Lal Praveen Nath Sahdeo,
PW-2 Phuddin Thakur claimed to be eye witness and PW-7 Lal Pradeep
Nath Sahdeo, the informant, PW-5 Dr. Surendra Kumar Singh who
conducted autopsy on dead body of the three deceased and PW-8 Arvind
Kumar Manjhi are the most relevant witnesses.PW-3 Manoj Kumar
Singh, PW-4 Lal Sujeet Nath Sahdeo, PW-6 Prakash Kumar Das and
PW-9 Satarughan Thakur have reiterated the prosecution evidence.
11. The prosecution had also adduced following documentary
evidences in support of its case:
(i) Ext.1,1/1 and 1/2 are the signature of witness Manoj Kumar Singh
PW-3 who was a witness to the three inquest reports.
(ii) Ext.2 is the signature of witness Manoj Kumar Singh on production –
cum-seizure list.
(iii) Ext.2/1 is the signature of Lal Sujeet Nath Sahdeo-PW-4 on the
production -cum-seizure list.
(iv) Ext.3,3/1 and 3/2 are the postmortem reports of all the three
deceased.
(v) Ext.4 is a certificate given by Prakash Kumar Das, in charge of
technical cell in the office of superintendent of police, Lohardaga.
(vi) Ext.5 is the call detail report of Madan Yadav.
(vii) Ext.6 is photo copy of the application for grant of SIM in the name
of Aneshwar Munda and Ext. 6/1 of photocopy of Aadhaar card of
Aneshwar Munda.
(viii) Ext. 7 is photocopy of the application for grant of SIM in the name
of Vishwanath Uranv and Ext.7/1 is the photocopy of his voter ID card.
4
2026:JHHC:6726-DB
(ix) Ext. 8 is photocopy of the application for grant of SIM in the name of
Mahesh Yadav and Ext.8/1 is the photocopy of his voter ID card.
(x) Ext. 9 is production-cum-seizure list of a CD containing conversation
in between Kameshwar Yadav and accused Madan Yadav and Ext.9/1
and 9/2 are signatures of the witnesses of the seizure list.
(xi) Ext.10 is a certificate given by Prakash Kumar Das.
(xii) Ext. 11 is a certificate issued by Superintendent of Police,
Lohardaga.
(xiii) Ext.12 is signature of the informant on the fardbeyan. Ext.12/1 is
fardbeyan of Lal Pradeep Nath Sahdeo, Ext.12/2 and Ext. 12/3 are
endorsement of the officer-in-charge on the fardbeyan.
(xiv) Ext.13, Ext.13/1 and Ext.13/2 are carbon copy of inquest report of
the deceased.
(xv) Ext.14 is production -cum-seizure list
(xvi) Ext.15 is the formal FIR.
(xvii) Ext. 16 is the envelope in which the CDs were sealed.
(xviii) Ext.17 is the letter of Superintendent of Police, Lohardaga.
(xix) Ext.18 is the certificate issued by Superintendent of Police,
Lohardaga.
(xx)Ext. 19 is a report of state forensic science laboratory .
(xxi) Ext.20 is certified copy of FIR of Kisko PS Case No. 48 of 2014,
Ext. 20/1 is certified copy of FIR of Kisko PS Case No. 49 of 2014, Ext.
20/2 is certified copy of FIR of Kisko PS Case No. 50 of 2014.
(xxii) Ext. 21 is photo copy of a notification of Home Department, Govt.
of Jharkhand.
12. The trial Court, after recording the evidence of witnesses,
examination-in-chief and cross-examination, recorded the statement of
the accused, found the charges levelled against the appellant proved
beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the appellant had been found
guilty and convicted for the offence under sections 148, 149/364,
149/379, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 27 of Arms Act and
section 17(2) of C.L.A. Act and sentenced to undergo RI for life with
fine of Rs.10,000/- under section 364 r/w 149 and under section 302 of
the IPC with default stipulation of RI for three months. The appellant is
5
2026:JHHC:6726-DB
further sentenced to undergo RI for three years u/s 379 r/w 149 and u/s
148 of the IPC. The appellant is further sentenced to undergo RI for
three years and fine of Rs. 10,000 under section 27 Arms Act and in
default he shall further undergo RI for three months and he is further
sentenced to undergo RI for three years u/s 17(2) of the C.L.A. Act.
13. The aforesaid order of conviction and sentence is subject matter
of instant appeal.
Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant:
14. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the
Trial Court cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
15. The following grounds have been taken by the learned counsel
for the appellant in assailing the impugned judgment of conviction: –
(i) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
has submitted that the learned court below failed to consider
that there is vital contradiction in the evidence of the
witnesses.
(ii) He has further stated that FIR was lodged after two days
and also there is no sufficient cause has been shown by the
prosecution. The learned court below has also failed to take
into consideration that the place of occurrence has been
tempered by the prosecution as the dead bodies of the
deceased were removed from the place of occurrence as they
6
2026:JHHC:6726-DBwere loaded on a truck and carried away to Murmu village and
this fact finds support from the evidence of PW-8.
(iii) The learned court below failed to take into consideration
that P.W.1 namely Lal Praveen Nath Sahadeo has deposed in
his evidence that he was far from the hut about 55-60 feet and
he was along with Lal Pradip Nath Sahadeo (informant and
own brother of him), Lal Arvind Nath Sahadeo, Lal Ujjain
Nath Sahadeo, Lal Anil Nath Sahadeo and 1-2 villagers but
except P.W.1 and P.W. 7 who are own brothers, no one named
above has been examined in this case. From the evidence of
P.W. 1 it appears that he has not seen any miscreants shot fire
on his father, uncle and brother which clearly shows that he is
not the eye witness.
(iv) He has further stated that the learned court below failed to
take into consideration that from perusal of the evidence of
P.W. 2 namely Phuddin Thakur it appears that when they
reached in the hut then on that time sister and family of Chotu
Munda were also present in the house but they have not been
examined further it appears from the evidence of P.W.2 that he
is unable to identify the miscreants due to evening.
(v) The learned court below failed to take into consideration
that P.W. 2 who claimed to be an eye witness of the
occurrence has examined by the police after 20-25 days. From
perusal of the evidence of P.W.5 who is a doctor who
conducted post-mortem on the dead bodies has stated in his
7
2026:JHHC:6726-DBevidence that there is no mark of assault by danda on the dead
bodies but as per the evidence of P.W.2 namely Phuddin
Thakur who claimed to be an eye-witness to the occurrence,
stated in his evidence that the miscreants assaulted them with
danda.
(vi) The learned court below failed to take into consideration
that from evidence of P.W.6 namely Prakash Kumar Das,
constable-cum in charge, Technical cell, SP Office, Lohardaga
stated in his cross examination that he has no special
knowledge of identifying the voice on the mobile. Further he
has said in his evidence that the appellant and accused Madan
were not talked to each other by calling their names but inspite
of that he identified their names and voice and SIM with
mobile number which was used in the crime were not
produced before him.
(vii) It, has further been contended that
it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased and their
family members stayed in the hut of Chhotu Munda situated in
MarayanJungle on 20/03/2015 and 21/03/2015 but the said Chot
u Munda who would have been a material witness has not
been examined by the prosecution.
(viii) It has further been contended that as per the
prosecution story, all the three deceased were killed by the
mob of Naxalites and the present appellant being a member of
the mob was instrumental in the said killing and the
8
2026:JHHC:6726-DBprosecution in order to substantiate the said factual aspect has
relied upon the deposition of P.W.2 projecting him as
eyewitness but question arises herein that the why the mob of
Naxalites left him and he was assaulted by shoes only and
further this witness in his examination-in-chief could not
properly explained this aspect, therefore entire prosecution
case appears to be fishy and suspicious.
(ix) It is further stated that the learned court below failed to
take into consideration that the informant stated in his
evidence that he has not seen any one to kill the deceased by
shot fire arm and he could not say that who has killed his
father, uncle and cousin brother, therefore, the judgment of
conviction and sentence passed by the learned court below is
bad in law and is fit to be set aside.
16. The learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid
ground, has submitted that the trial court has not taken in to
consideration of the aforesaid facts as such impugned judgment requires
interference, hence not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Submission advanced by the learned counsel for the State &
Informant:
17. Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the State and Ms. Divya, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the informant have submitted that the accused appellant had played
leading role in commission of crime and thus has been charged u/s 147/
148/ 149 /342/ 364/ 302/ 379 IPC and u/s 27 Arms Act and section 17 of
9
2026:JHHC:6726-DB
C.L.A. Act for causing murder of the deceased persons with intention
and knowledge.
18. It is further submitted that the deceased died of fire arm injuries
which is consistent with the oral evidence of prosecution. The ocular
evidence of prosecution got support from the medical evidence.
19. It is further submitted that the appellant has also got seven
criminal antecedents of like nature which shows that he is habitual of
committing such type of offence and is a veteran criminal.
20. Therefore, learned counsel for the State submitted that learned
trial court on the basis of evidence of the witnesses and documents
available on record has rightly convicted the appellant under sections
148, 149/364, 149/379, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 27 of Arms
Act and section 17(2) of C.L.A which requires no interference by this
court.
21. Learned counsels appearing for the State, based upon the
aforesaid premise, has submitted that the impugned judgment does not
suffer from any error, hence the instant appeals are fit to be dismissed.
Analysis:-
22. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the
documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the trial
court in the impugned judgment.
23. We have also gone through the testimonies of the witnesses as
available in the LCR as also the exhibits.
10
2026:JHHC:6726-DB
24. Learned trial court, based upon the testimonies of witnesses,
has passed the judgment of conviction and sentence as indicated above in
the preceding paragraphs.
25. This Court before considering the argument advanced on behalf
of the parties is now proceeding to consider the deposition of witnesses,
as per the testimony as recorded by learned trial Court.
26. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, had examined
altogether nine witnesses. Out of which PW-1 Lal Praveen Nath Sahdeo,
PW-2 Phuddin Thakur claimed to be eye witness and PW-7 Lal Pradeep
Nath Sahdeo, the informant, PW-5 Dr. Surendra Kumar Singh who
conducted autopsy on dead body of the three deceased. other witness is
PW-8 Arvind Kumar Manjhi PW-3 Manoj Kumar Singh, PW-4 Lal
Sujeet Nath Sahdeo, PW-6 Prakash Kumar Das and PW-9 Satarughan
Thakur.
27. PW-1, Lal Praveen Nath Sahdeo in his examination-in-chief has
deposed that on the date of occurrence he went to Marayan along with
his father Lal Jai Kishor Nath Sahdeo, his uncle Lal Bal Kishor Nath
Sahdeo, cousin brother Lal Pramod Nath Sahdeo and his elder brothers
Lal Pradeep Nath Sahdeo, Lal Arvind Nath Sahdeo, Sal Ujjain Nath
Sahdeo, Ravi, Pudhin Thakur and Lal Anil Nath Sahdeo. They went
there for agricultural purposes.
On 20.03.2015 he stayed at Chotu Munda’s hut in the
Marayan forest. The next day, after lunch, they all were wandering in the
forest. His father Lal Jai Kishore Nath Sahdeo, Lal Bal Kishore Nath
Sahdeo, and Lal Pramod Nath Sahdeo stayed in the hut. At around 4:45
11
2026:JHHC:6726-DB
pm, hiselder brother Lal Pradeep Nath Sahdeo received a call on his
mobile phone from Lal Pramod Nath Sahdeo that Maoist armed with
weapons had arrived near the hut and he was telling him to flee away
from there. He saw 50-51 armed militants were present there who were
taking away his father Lal Jai Kishore Nath Shahdeo, his uncle Lal Bal
Kishore Nath Shahdev and cousin brother Lal Pramod Nath Sahdo and
also Pudhin Thakur by tying their hands and legs and they were also
assaulting them. They had also taken away his two licensing rifles and
two Sim-cards. Thereafter he went to his house.
On 22.3.2015 in the morning Pudhin Thakur came to his house
and informed him that all the three persons were murdered by the Moist
in Sahedapat. Thereafter he along with villagers went at the place of
occurrence and found dead bodies of Lal Jai Kishore Nath Shahdeo, Lal
Bal Kishore Nath Shahdeoand Lal Pramod Nath Sahdeo. They were shot
dead and also empty cartridges were lying near the dead bodies. With the
help of the villagers, dead-bodies were loaded onto a truck and brought
to the village. Thereafter the present case was lodged by his elder brother
Lal Pradeep Nath Sahdev.
He has further deposed that reason of the occurrence is that for
25 years his family had been restricting the Maoist to enter into the
village.
In his cross-examination he deposed that he was watching for 10-
15 minutes. The Maoist went inside and brought the deceased out of the
hut. He did not try to stop the Maoists. He reached his house at about
10:00 p.m. He was unable to inform the police because he could not
12
2026:JHHC:6726-DB
speak on mobile phones. He informed his family and villagers about the
incident.
28. PW-2 Phuddin Thakur is the eye-witness to the occurrence and
according to the prosecution case this witness was also abducted by the
Maoist along with the deceased persons and taken
towards SAHEDAPAT. He deposed that on the date of occurrence at
about 5 p.m. he along with Lal Jai Kishore Nath Shahdeo, Lal Bal
Kishore Nath Shahdeoand Lal Pramod Nath Sahdeo were in the hut.
Suddenly Maoists came there and surrounded them. Pramod Lal Sahdeo
informed Pradeep Lal Sahdeo on phone that Maoists had come. They
were brought outside the hut. Their hands and legs were tied. They were
assaulted by the Maoist. The Maoist had taken them towards Sahedapat.
This witness has further deposed that the extremists again enquired about
the identity of four persons and after the identity was disclosed, this witn
ess was made to sit separately and thereafter all said three abducted
persons were shot dead. On next date he informed the villagers about
death of the deceased persons.
In cross-examination he deposed that no villagers had seen them
when they were taken away by the Maoist. He was assaulted on his head
by shoes.
29. PW-3 Manoj Kumar Singh had deposed that when he went to
the place of occurrence, he saw that both hands and legs of the deceased
were tied with rope and they were shot dead. From the place of
occurrence seven empty cartridges were recovered. The dead bodies and
recovered cartridges were brought to the village. Police came and inquest
13
2026:JHHC:6726-DB
reports were prepared upon which he has put his signature marked as
Exts. 1, 1/1 and 1/ 2. He has also put his signature on production -cum-
seizure list which has been marked as Ext.2.
30. PW-4 Lal Sujit Nath Sahdeo has deposed on the same line as
has been deposed by PW-1 and has supported the case of prosecution.
31. PW-5 Dr. Surendra Kumar Singh in his examination-in-chief
has stated that on 22.3.2015 he had conducted autopsy on the dead
bodies of Lal Jai Kishore Nath Sahdeo, Lal Pramod Nath Sahdeo and Lal
Bal Kishroe Nath Sahdeo.
On examination of Lal Jai Kishore Nath Sahdeo, he has found
following ante-mortem wound present on the body:
i. Deep black piercing wound size 2 x 1 cm left side of chest.
ii. Deep black entrance wound on right side of chest 1×1 cm.
iii. One exit wound on left side back at posterior auxiliary line
size 3×2 cm.
iv. One exit wound right side mid auxiliary line 2×2 c.m., 1×1
cm bullet was inside wound extracted during postmortem and
headed over to I.O.
v. Bruise around right arm1 cm wide.
Opinion: cause of death injury no.1.
On internal examination he has found following injuries:
a. Lungs, Pleura, Heart, Blood Vessels of chest lacerated and
full of blood.
b. Wall of chest abdomen injured, stomach empty, feacal
matter found in intestine, urinary bladder empty.
14
2026:JHHC:6726-DB
c. Liver, spleen, kidney and productive organ normal.
32. On examination of Lal Pramod Nath Sahdeo, he has found six
entries wound and six exit wound present on the body which are as
under:
Entry Wounds:
1. Back of left forearm near elbow;
2. Back of left forearm near wrist.
3. Left side of chest
4. Left side of abdomen.
5. Left side of abdomen.
6. Left side of chest.
Exit Wounds:
1. Front of left forearm;
2. Front of left forearm.
3. Left side of abdomen;
4. Left side of abdomen.
5. Right side of lower abdomen.
6. Left inguinal region.
On internal examination he has found following injuries:
Lung, Heart, Stomach, intestine was found lacerated and blood
collected around. Fecal matter contaminated in abdominal
cavity.
Cause of death- injury no.3 was fatal.
All the injuries were caused by fire arm.
15
2026:JHHC:6726-DB
33. On examination of Lal Bal Kishore Nath Sahdeo he has found
following injuries:
Injury caused by fire arm:
1.Entrance wound near left side of umbilicus 1 cm x 1cm.
2. Exit wound found in back left side 3 cm x 2 cm.
3. One entrance wound over left forearm 1 cm x 1 cm.
4. Ext wound found on dorsum of left forearm 3 cm x 2 cm.
Internal Injury- Intestine, Liver lacerated by bullet.
Cause of death-injury no1.
On internal dissection-Stomach, small intestine, liver lacerated
blood and feacal matter came out in abdominal cavity.
34. PW-6 Prakash Kumar Das has supported the case of
prosecution.
35. PW-7 Lal Pradeep Nath Sahdeo has deposed in his
examination-in-chief that on the date of occurrence he was present at the
place of occurrence. He had seen that the hut was surrounded by 50-60
Maoists who were armed with deadly weapons. He was peeping from
some distance. Thereafter he had received a call from his brother Pramod
that Maoists had come and he was advised to flee away from there. He
had seen the appellant talking to one Madan. Thereafter, they had taken
the deceased persons and Phudin Thakur towards Sahedapat. Thereafter
this witness returned to his house. In the morning at 05:00 a.m. Pudhin
Thakur came to his house and informed that all the three persons were
murdered by the Moist in Sahedapat. Thereafter he along with villagers
went to the place of occurrence and found dead bodies of Lal Jai Kishore
16
2026:JHHC:6726-DB
Nath Shahdeo, Lal Bal Kishore Nath Shahdeo and Lal Pramod Nath
Sahdeo. They were shot dead and also empty cartridges were lying near
the dead bodies. With the help of the villagers, dead-bodies were loaded
onto a truck and brought to the village.
This witness has identified the accused/appellant standing in the
dock and stated that the appellant had played leading role in the incident.
36. PW-8 Arvind Kumar Manjhi is the Investigating officer. He has
given vivid description of the place of occurrence. He has further
deposed that he recorded the statement of Chhotu Munda who stated that
on the date of occurrence he went to work as a daily wager in Latehar
Police Line. He prepared inquest report of the dead-bodies and found
gunshot injuries on the dead bodies. Further he deposed that he had sent
the recovered empty cartridges for its examination after getting
permission from the court. He has further given the details of criminal
antecedents of the appellant which are as under:
(i) Kisko PS Case No. 48/14 dated 21.7.2014 under sections
(ii) Kisko PS Case No. 49/14 dated 21.7.2014 under sections
(iii) Kisko PS Case No. 50/14 dated 21.7.2014 under sections
(iv) Kisko PS Case No. 52/14 dated 04.08.2014 under sections 3/ 4 of
Explosive Substance Act and 17 CLA Act.
(v) Kisko PS Case No. 40/15 dated 23.6.2015 under sections
147,148,149,353, 427 IPC, 3/4 of Explosive Substance Act and 17 CLA
Act.
17
2026:JHHC:6726-DB
(vi) Kisko PS Case No. 51/15 dated 06.8.2015 under sections
147,148,149,353, 427 IPC, 3/4 of Explosive Substance Act and 17 CLA
Act.
(vii) Bagru P.S. case No. 01/15 dated 10.11.2015 under sections 3/4 of
Explosive Substance Act and 17 CLA Act.
37. PW-9 Satrudhan Thakur is constable no.2575 presently deputed
at confidential cell, SP, Office, Lohardaga has supported the case of
prosecution.
38. This Court, in order to appreciate the submissions advanced on
behalf of the appellant with respect to the culpability of the appellant,
vis-à-vis the evidences adduced on behalf of the parties, deems it fit and
proper to refer certain judicial pronouncements in context of contention
raised by the appellants.
39. The learned counsel has contended that the learned trial court
even in absence of corroboration of the testimony of P.W.2 who is self-
proclaimed sole eyewitness of the killing of the deceased had convicted
the appellant which is bad in eyes of law. Further P.W. 2 who claimed to
be an eye witness of the occurrence has examined by the police after 20-
25 days.
40. The learned counsel has further contended that as per the
prosecution case the deceased and their family members stayed in the hut
of Chootu Munda situated in Marayan Forest on 20/03/2015 and
21/03/2015 but the said Chhotu Munda who was material witness has not
been examined by the prosecution.
18
2026:JHHC:6726-DB
41. The Learned Counsel has further raised the issue of tampering
of the place of occurrence and has submitted that the place of occurrence
has been tempered by the prosecution as the dead bodies of the deceased
were removed from the place of occurrence as they were loaded on a
truck and carried away to Murmu village and this fact finds support from
the evidence of PW-8.
42. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual aspects and contention
of the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court in the instant case is
to consider following issues: –
(i) Whether the material as has come in course of trial is
sufficient to attract the offence committed under Section
(ii) Whether the sole testimony of an eyewitness (P.W.2) wo
is the witness of the second part of the occurrence i.e.
murder of three deceased persons, is sufficient enough to
prove the alleged charges against the appellants beyond all
reasonable doubt.
(iii) Whether the non-examination of the material witness
and delay lodging of the FIR is fatal to the prosecution case.
(iv) Whether the delay in recording the statement of the
P.W.2 by the police raised suspicion about the veracity of
the prosecution case.
(v) Whether in the case of the removal of the dead bodies of
the deceased from the place of occurrence as the bodies
were loaded on a truck and carried away to Murmu village
19
2026:JHHC:6726-DBis sufficient enough to discredit the case of the prosecution
even in the presence of other cogent evidence.
43. Since all the aforesaid issues are inextricably interlinked, the
same are being decided herein below by considering them together.
44. In the context of aforesaid issues, it needs to refer herein that
there is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony
of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act,
1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony the courts will insist on
corroboration. In fact, it is not the number, the quantity, but the quality
that is material. The time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be
weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of
truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, or otherwise.
45. The law is well settled that the judgment of conviction can be
passed also on the basis of the testimony of sole witness but the
testimony of said witness should be trustworthy as per the judgment
rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bipin Kumar Mondal v.
State of W.B., (2010) 12 SCC 91 paragraphs 30 to 34 of the said
judgment are being referred hereunder as :-
“30. Shri Bagga has also submitted that there was sole testimony of
Sujit Mondal, PW 1, and the rest i.e. depositions of PW 2 to PW 8,
could be treated merely as hearsay. The same cannot be relied upon
for conviction.
31. In Sunil Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) this Court
repelled a similar submission observing that: (SCC p. 371, para 9)“9. … as a general rule the court can and may act on the testimony of
a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal
impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single20
2026:JHHC:6726-DBwitness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
But, if there are doubts about the testimony the courts will insist on
corroboration.”
In fact, it is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is
material. The time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be
weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring
of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, or otherwise.
32. In Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra this Court reiterated the
similar view observing that it is the quality and not the quantity of
evidence which is necessary for proving or disproving a fact. The
legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of
evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses.
It is, therefore, open to a competent court to fully and completely rely
on a solitary witness and record conviction. Conversely, it may acquit
the accused in spite of testimony of several witnesses if it is not
satisfied about the quality of evidence.
33. In Kunju v. State of T.N., a similar view has been reiterated
placing reliance on various earlier judgments of this Court
including Jagdish Prasad v. State of M.P. and Vadivelu Thevar v.
State of Madras.
34. Thus, in view of the above, the bald contention made by Shri
Bagga that no conviction can be recorded in case of a solitary
eyewitness has no force and is negatived accordingly.”
46. Likewise, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kuriya and
another vs. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 10 SCC 433 has held as under: –
” 33. —The Court has stated the principle that, as a general rule,
the Court can and may act on the testimony of a single eyewitness
provided he is wholly reliable and base the conviction on the
testimony of such sole eyewitness. There is no legal impediment in
convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness.”
47. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kalu @ Amit vs. State
of Haryana, (2012) 8 SCC 34 held as under:-
21
2026:JHHC:6726-DB
“11. We find no infirmity in the judgment of the High Court which has
rightly affirmed the trial court’s view. It is true that the accused have
managed to win over the complainant PW 4 Karambir Yadav, but the
evidence of PW 5 Ram Chander Yadav bears out the prosecution case.
It is well settled that conviction can be based on the evidence of a sole
eyewitness if his evidence inspires confidence. This witness has
meticulously narrated the incident and supported the prosecution
case. We find him to be a reliable witness.”
48. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Sheelam Ramesh v. State
of A.P., (1999) 8 SCC 369 in Para -18 held as follows:-
“18. According to learned counsel for the accused appellants,
though PW 3 has deposed that 10-15 persons were in the vicinity at
the time of occurrence, no independent witness was examined by the
prosecution. There is nothing on evidence to show that there was any
other eyewitness to the occurrence. Having examined all the
eyewitnesses even if other persons present nearby were not examined,
the evidence of the eyewitnesses cannot be discarded. Courts are
concerned with quality and not with quantity of evidence and in a
criminal trial, conviction can be based on the sole evidence of a
witness if it inspires confidence.”
49. Thus, it is evident that in criminal trial conviction can be based
on the sole evidence of a witness if it inspires confidence and as a
general rule, the Court can and may act on the testimony of a single
eyewitness provided he or she is wholly reliable and base the conviction
on the testimony of such sole eyewitness. There is no legal impediment
in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness.
50. So far as the issue of non-examination of material witness is
concerned, it is settled position of law that that due to non-examination
of independent witnesses, the prosecution story will not vitiate in a case
where the prosecution version is being corroborated by eye-witness, as
the case herein. Reference in this regard be made to the relevant
22
2026:JHHC:6726-DB
paragraph of judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
Sambhu Das v. State of Assam, (2010) 10 SCC 374 which reads as
under:
“38.In our opinion, it is not necessary for the prosecution to examine
every other witness cited by them in the charge-sheet. Mere non-
examination of some persons does not corrode the vitality of the
prosecution version, particularly, the witnesses examined have
withstood the cross-examination and pointed to the accused persons
as perpetrators of the crime. The trial court and the High Court have
come to the conclusion that the evidence of PW 1 is trustworthy and
reliable. We have also carefully perused the evidence of PW 1, whose
evidence is corroborated by PW 8 and the post-mortem report issued
by PW 6, we are convinced that the trial court and the High Court
were justified in believing the testimony of PW 1.”
51. Likewise, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered
in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2003) 1 SCC 240 held as under:
“13. As regards the examination of independent persons or witnesses,
we would do well to note a decision of this Court in Ambika Prasad v.
State (Delhi Admn.5) wherein this Court in para 12 observed: (SCC
pp. 653-54)“12. It is next contended that despite the fact that 20 to 25 persons
collected at the spot at the time of the incident as deposed by the
prosecution witnesses, not a single independent witness has been
examined and, therefore, no reliance should be placed on the evidence
of PW 5 and PW 7. This submission also deserves to be rejected. It is
a known fact that independent persons are reluctant to be witnesses or
to assist the investigation. Reasons are not far to seek. Firstly, in
cases where injured witnesses or the close relative of the deceased are
under constant threat and they dare not depose the truth before the
court, independent witnesses believe that their safety is not
guaranteed. That belief cannot be said to be without any substance.
Another reason may be the delay in recording the evidence of
independent witnesses and repeated adjournments in the court. In any
case, if independent persons are not willing to cooperate with the
investigation, the prosecution cannot be blamed and it cannot be a23
2026:JHHC:6726-DBground for rejecting the evidence of injured witnesses. Dealing with a
similar contention in State of U.P. v. Anil Singh 6this Court observed:
(SCC pp. 691-92, para 15) ‘In some cases, the entire prosecution case
is doubted for not examining all witnesses to the occurrence. We have
recently pointed out the indifferent attitude of the public in the
investigation of crimes. The public are generally reluctant to come
forward to depose before the court. It is, therefore, not correct to
reject the prosecution version only on the ground that all witnesses to
the occurrence have not been examined. Nor it is proper to reject the
case for want of corroboration by independent witnesses if the case
made out is otherwise true and acceptable.’ ”
14. The test of creditworthiness and acceptability in our view, ought to
be the guiding factors and if so the requirements as above, stand
answered in the affirmative, question of raising an eyebrow on
reliability of witness would be futile. The test is the credibility and
acceptability of the witnesses available — if they are so, the
prosecution should be able to prove the case with their assistance.”
52. Further, delay in recording the statement of P.W.2 by the police
has been raised herein, but it is settled position of law as settled by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bodh Raj @ Bodha and ors. Vs.
State of J.K. AIR 2002 SC 3164wherein it has been observed that it
cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that if there is any
delay in examination of a particular witness, under section 161 Cr.P.C.
the prosecution version becomes suspect. It would depend upon several
factors. If the explanation offered for the delayed examination, is
plausible and acceptable, prosecution case cannot be doubted.
53. It is further settled connotation of law that unless the
Investigating Officer is categorically asked as to why there was delay in
examination of the witnesses the defence cannot gain any advantage
there-from. It cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that
24
2026:JHHC:6726-DB
if there is any delay in examination of a particular witness the
prosecution version becomes suspect. It would depend upon several
factors. If the explanation offered for the delayed examination is
plausible and acceptable and the Court accepts the same as plausible,
there is no reason to interfere with the conclusion, reference in this
regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Banti alias Guddu Vs. State of Madhya PradeshAIR 2004
SC 261and also in the case of State of U.P. Vs. SatishAIR 2005 SC
1000.
54. Thus, stricto sensu, delay in recording witness statements, more
so when the said delay is explained, will not aid an accused. Of course,
no hard-and fast principle in this regard ought to be or can be laid down,
as delay, if any, in recording statements will have to be examined by the
Court concerned in conjunction with the peculiar facts of the case before
it. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Firoz khan Akbarkhan versus the
State of Maharashtra 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 349. For ready reference the
relevant paragraph is being quoted as under:
21. Insofar as the delay of 2/3 days in recording the statements of the
eye-witnesses under Section 1615 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) is concerned, the said
delay has been thoroughly explained by the witnesses, including the
Investigating Officer, to the effect that there were riots in the area. On
this score, the Investigating Officer was involved in maintaining law
and order in the affected area. In the attendant facts and
circumstances, the course of action adopted by the police cannot be
termed unjustified and no adverse inference can be drawn on this
count. No doubt that Court has laid down that an inordinate delay in25
2026:JHHC:6726-DBrecording witness statements can prove to be fatal for the prosecution,
as pointed out by three learned Judges in Ganesh Bhavan Patel v
State of Maharashtra, (1978) 4 SCC 371; however, therein, the delay
in recording statements of the material witnesses was accompanied by
a delay in registering of the FIR and the surrounding circumstances,
which led the Court to hold that there was a ‘a cloud of suspicion on
the credibility of the entire warp and woof of the prosecution story.’ In
Jagjit Singh v State of Punjab, (2005) 3 SCC 689 and State of A.P. v S
Swarnalatha, (2009) 8 SCC 383, the Court held in favour of the
convict/accused, as the inordinate delays therein could not be
sufficiently explained. Delay of about 27 days, in a case where
communal violence had broken out, was held not fatal, in Lal Bahadur
v State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 4 SCC 557. Delay of over 2 years in
recording witness statements was deemed not fatal, when explained,
in Baldev Singh v State of Punjab, (2014) 12 SCC 473. Delay in
recording witness statements was held not fatal per se in Sunil Kumar
v State of Rajasthan, (2005) 9 SCC 283 and V K Mishra v State of
Uttarakhand, (2015) 9 SCC 588. Delay in recording statements of
witnesses was held to have cast serious doubts on the prosecution
version in Shahid Khan v State of Rajasthan, (2016) 4 SCC 96 and
Jafarudheen v State of Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 440. It was held, in
Goutam Joardar v State of W. B., (2022) 17 SCC 549, by a
Coordinate Bench that ‘there was some delay in recording the
statements of the eyewitnesses concerned but mere factum of delay
by itself cannot result in rejection of their testimonies.’ Per our
understanding, Ganesh Bhavan Patel (supra) is not an authority to
contend that delay in recording witness statements is always fatal to
the prosecution’s case. Thus, stricto sensu, delay in recording
witness statements, more so when the said delay is explained, will
not aid an accused. Of course, no hard-and fast principle in this
regard ought to be or can be laid down, as delay, if any, in recording
statements will have to be examined by the Court concerned in
conjunction with the peculiar facts of the case before it. Our reading
of the above shall apply on all fours to delays in the context of
Section 164 of the Code.
55. Thus, it cannot be rule of universal application that if there is
any delay in examination of a particular witness the prosecution version
26
2026:JHHC:6726-DB
becomes suspect. It would depend upon several factors. If the
explanation offered for the delayed examination is plausible and
acceptable and the Court accepts the same as plausible, there is no reason
to interfere with the conclusion
56. Further delay in lodging FIR has also been contended herein
but it is settled position of law that delay in filing FIR by itself cannot be
a ground to doubt the prosecution case and discard it. The delay in
lodging the FIR would put the Court on its guard to search if any
plausible explanation has been offered and if offered whether it is
satisfactory, reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered
by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sahebrao and anr. Vs. State
of Maharashtra AIR 2006 SC 2002.
57. Delay in lodging the first information report cannot be used as a
ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case and discarding the
same on the ground of delay in lodging the first information report. It is
no doubt true that mere delay in lodging the first information report is
not necessarily fatal to the case of the prosecution. However, the fact that
the report was lodged belatedly is a relevant fact of which the Court must
take notice. The time of occurrence, the distance to the police station,
mode of conveyance available, are all factors which have a bearing on
the question of delay in lodging of the report. In the ultimate analysis,
what is the effect of delay in lodging the report with the police is a
matter of appreciation of evidence, and the Court must consider the
delay in the background of the facts and circumstances of each case,
reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the
27
2026:JHHC:6726-DB
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ramdas and ors. Vs. State of
Maharashtra AIR 2007 SC 155.
58. Thus, it is trite that mere delay in lodging the first information
report is not by itself fatal to the case of the prosecution. Nevertheless, it
is a relevant factor of which the Court is obliged to take notice and
examine whether any explanation for the delay has been offered and if
offered, whether it is satisfactory or not. If no satisfactory explanation is
forthcoming, an adverse inference may be drawn against the prosecution.
However, in the event, the delay is properly and satisfactorily explained;
the prosecution case cannot be thrown out merely on the ground of delay
in lodging the F.I.R. Obviously, the explanation has to be considered in
the light of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case.
59. It has further been contended that place of occurrence has been
tempered by the prosecution as the dead bodies of the deceased were
removed from the place of occurrence as they were loaded on a truck and
carried away to Murmu village.
60. In the aforesaid context it needs to refer herein that moving
corpses before police inspection constitutes tampering with evidence but
it cannot be always fatal to the case and it only requires strong,
independent evidence to prove the original place of occurrence and the
sequence of events.
61. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law this
Court in order to answer the aforesaid issues is now re-adverting to the
factual aspect of the case.
28
2026:JHHC:6726-DB
62. According to the prosecution case few members of the family
of the deceased comprising of deceased Lal Jai Kishore Nath Sahdeo,
deceased Lal Bal Kishore Nath Sahdeo and deceased Lal Pramod Nath
Sahdeo, Pradeep Nath Sahdeo (PW 7), Praveen Nath Sahdeo (PW 1)
alongwith villager Phuddin (PW 2), Ravi etc. had gone to Marayan
Forest on 20/03/2015 to supervise their cultivation work and also
enjoying picnic. In the Forest they were staying in a hut belonging to
Chhotu Munda.
63. It is the case of the prosecution that on 21/03/2015 at about
05.00 p.m while Lal Jai Kishore Nath Sahdeo, Lal Pramod Nath Sahdeo,
Lal Bal Kishore Nath Sahdeo and Phuddin Thakur stayed in the hut, the
remaining persons proceeded towards the Jungle for a walk.
64. Suddenly PW 1 Lal Praveen Nath Sahdeo and PW 7 Lal
Pradeep Nath Sahdeo saw that the Maoist have surrounded the hut so
they hid themselves in the Jungle. Thereafter the Maoist comprising of
the accused Kameshwar Yadav and 50-60 unknown persons abducted
Lal Jai Kishore Nath Sahdeo, Lal Pramod Nath Sahdeo, Lal Bal Kishore
Nath Sahdeo and Phuddin Thakur (P.W.2) and took them towards
SAHEDAPAT. Seeing this the informant and other persons returned to
their village.
65. From the aforesaid it is evident that the prosecution has made
out a case that the Maoist had abducted Lal Jai Kishore Nath Sahdeo, Lal
Pramod Nath Sahdeo and Lal Bal Kishore Nath Sahdeo in order to
commit murder.
29
2026:JHHC:6726-DB
66. Thus, it is apparent from the prosecution case that on the point
of alleged occurrence, there are two set of witnesses. The first set
comprise of Lal Praveen Nath Sahdeo (P.W.1) and the informant Lal
Pradeep Nath Sahdeo (P.W.7) who had gone to the Marayan Forest on
the fateful day with the deceased persons.
67. It is evident from para 6 of the testimony of Lal Praveen Nath
Sahdeo (PW 1) that he saw the extremist abducting his father Lal Jai
Kishore Nath Sahdeo (since deceased) Uncle Lal Bal Kishore Nath
Sahdeo (since deceased) and cousin Lal Pramod Nath Sahdeo(since
deceased) and Phuddin Thakur and taking them towards SAHEDAPAT
with their hands tied, for ready reference the aforesaid part of testimony
of PW.1 is being quoted as under:
“6. िफर म दे खा उ वादी मेरे िपता, चाचा एवं भाई को मारते-िपटते ए
सहे दापाट क ी रा ा के तरफ ले गये।इन तीनों के साथ पुदीन ठाकुर भीथा,
िजसका भी हाथ बंधा आ था।”
68. On the similar line Lal Pradeep Nath Sahdeo (PW-7)
(Informant) has stated at paragraph 6 of his testimony that he saw the
extremist abducting his father Lal Pradeep Nath Sahdeo, uncle Lal Bal
Kishore Nath Sahdeo, cousin Lal Pramod Nath Sahdeo and Phuddin
Thakur with their hands tied behind their back and taken them towards
SAHEDAPAT, for ready reference the aforesaid part of testimony of
P.W.7 is being quoted as under:
“6.म दे खा िक मेरे िपताजी, चाचा लाल बालिकशोर नाथ साहदे व, चचेरा भाई
लाल मोदनाथ साहदे व, फुिदन ठाकुर को हाथ पीछे बांधकर माओवादी30
2026:JHHC:6726-DBिनकाले। माओवािदयों के बीच से ही एक आवाज “कामे र – मदन से बात
करो”।म दे खा िक कामे र फोन से बात करने लगा और बोला िक “ठाकुर
लोग पकड़ा गये ह ा करना है ” ।उधर से ा आवाज ा आदे श आया म
नहीं जानता।”
69. Thus, from the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses primarily
the alleged act kidnapping i.e. first part of the occurrence has fully been
established.
70. The Phuddin Thakur (PW 2) is the witness of the second part of
the alleged occurrence i.e. murder of all the three deceased persons, who
according to the prosecution case had also been abducted by the Maoist
along with the deceased persons and taken towards SAHEDAPAT.
Therefore, this witness is not only a victim but also an eye witness to the
occurrence. The fact of kidnapping of this witness along with deceased
persons by the Maoist has fully been substantiated by the testimony
prosecution witness P.W.1 and P.W.7 wherein they have categorically
stated that Phuddin Tkhur had also been kidnapped by the Maoist along
with the deceased persons.
71. Coming to the deposition of P.W.2,wherein he has stated that
on the date of occurrence at about 05.00 p.m, he along with Jai Kishore
Nath Sahdeo, Bal Kishore Nath Sahdeo and Pramod Nath Sahdeo were
present in the hut of Chhotu Munda and the remaining members had
gone out of the hut and at that time about 50-60 extremists surrounded
the hut. Thereafter the extremist entered inside the hut and enquired
about their identity. Thereafter all the four were taken out of the hut and
assaulted with a stick. Thereafter all the four were taken at some distance
31
2026:JHHC:6726-DB
and made to sit near a KACHA RASTA. The extremists again enquired
about the identity of four persons and after the identity was disclosed,
this witness was made to sit separately. The relevant part of the
testimony of this witness are being quoted as under:
“2. उससे एक िदन पहले िदन शु वार को म, मेरे साथ बाल िकशोरनाथ
साहदे व, जय िकशोरनाथ साहदे व, मोद नाथ साहदे व, दीप नाथ साहदे व,
वीण नाथ साहदे व, प ु लाल साहदे व, अिनल लाल साहदे व के साथ ाग
गुरमुसे मराइन गये थे जहां जंगल एवं खेतबाड़ी है ।खेत बाड़ी दे खने गये
थे।खेत बाड़ी उपर िजनका नाम बोला ं उनका है ।
3. शुकवार की रात वही छोटु गु ा का झोपड़ी जो भराइन जंगल म है उसम
का था।
4. अगले िदन शिनवार को शाम म ५.०० बजे हमलोग अपने गांव वापस आने
की तैयारी कर रहे थे। उस समय झोपड़ी म म, जयिकशोर नाथ साहदे व उफ
जयुनाथ साहदे व, बाल िकशोरनाथ साहदे व, मोद नाथ साहदे व थे।बािक लोग
बाहर की तरफ िनकले ए थे।झोपड़ी म हमलोग चार आदमी थे।
6.५.००बजे५०-६० की सं ा म उ वादी लोग आकर घेर िलये। मोदलाल
साहदे व ने दीपलाल साहदे व को फोन िकया और बोला िक उ वादी लोग
आ गये है तुमलोग साईड हो जाओ।
7.५.००बजे५०-६० की सं ा म उ वादी लोग आकर घेर िलये। मोद लाल
साहदे व ने दीप लाल साहदे व को फोन िकया और बोला िक उ वादी लोग
आ गये है तुमलोग साईड हो जाओ।
8. हमलोगों को झोपडी से िनकाल िदया। वा ा से पारों को मारने लगा। पुरव
साईड उन म से एक फोन पर िकसी को बोल रहा था िक ठाकुर लोगों
को पकडे है और पुछ रहा था इनका ा िकया जाए।
9. हम लोगों को चोला ो तुमलोगों को घर प ंया दे ते ह।दस कदम की दु री
पर एक नहर था। जयु लाल साहदे व नहीं उतर पा रहा था। वो उ वािदयों को
उतरने के िलए मदद के िलए बोला िजस पर वे लोग गाली-गलौज करने लगे32
2026:JHHC:6726-DBएवं मारने लगे।बाल िकशोर नाथ साहदे व तुंगी पहने ए वे जो खुल गया
था।वो भी उनको लुंगी पहना ले के िलए बोले।वे लोग गाली-गलौज करने लगे।
10. हमलोग पारों को वे लोग करीब आधा िकमी की दू री पर ले गये।दो
राइफल भी साथ ले गये ।हमलोगों को तीन गुठान रा े पर ले गया। वहां बैठा
िदया। दि ण गुठ करके बैठा िदया। वहां नाम पुराने लगा।सभी ने अपना नाम
बताया।
11. मुझे डं टा से मारकर एक तरफ अलग कर िदया। उसके बाद बािक तीनों
को गोली गार िदया। सबसे पहले जयु वालशाहदे व को गोली गाय, उसके चाद
बालिकशोर नाथ साहदे व को गोली मारा और अ म मोद लाल साहदे व को
गोली मार िदया। गोली लगने से तीनों लोग मर गये।
12. हमको बोला िक लाश ले जाएगा तो तुमको भी गोली मार दगे। वे लोग
पि म के तरफ े गये।दो-तीन घंटा म जमल म ही शटक गया। डर के मारे
दश गया था।
13. सुब ५०० बजे ाम गु मु आया एवं ठाकुर साहेब के यहां गये। वहा
सबको घटना के बारे म बताया। िफर सभी लोग जहां लाश वा वन गये और
लाश को उठा कर गां व ले आये।
14. िजस समय लाश उठा कर ला रहे थे उस समय पुिलस वहां प ं च गई थी।
15. पटना म शािमल एक जाज ायालय म हािजर है उसे पहचानता
ँ । यही आदमी तीनों को गोली मारा था। फोन से भी यहीं आदमी बात कर
रहा था और बािक लोगों को म दे खकर के नहीं पहचान सकता ोंिक डर से
मेरा हालत खराब हो
72. On careful scrutiny of the evidence of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 7 it
is evident that these witnesses have been cross-examined at length but
the no contradiction had been crop up in the evidence of these witnesses
and taking into consideration the evidence of kidnapping, this Court is
of the considered view that there is direct evidence on the point of
kidnapping of the deceased person and these witnesses has categorically
33
2026:JHHC:6726-DB
stated that the accused/appellant in association of other 50-60 unknown
persons abducted Lal Jai Kishore Nath Sahdeo, Lal Pramod Nath Sahdeo
and Lal Bal Kishore Nath Sahdeo on 21/03/2015 at 05.00 p.m.,
accordingly the charges against the appellant U/s 149/364 IPC has been
successfully established by the prosecution.
73. Now again reverting to the testimony of the P.W.2.This witness
has further stated that after separating him the extremist first shot Jai
Kishore Nath Sahdeo and thereafter Bal Kishore Nath Sahdeo and lastly
Pramod Nath Sahdeo.
74. Thus, it is the prosecution case that on 21/03/2015 at 05.00 p.m
while Lal Jai Kishore Nath Sahdeo, Lal Pramod Nath Sahdeo and Lal
Bal Kishore Nath Sahdeo and Phuddin Thakur were present in the hut of
Chhotu Munda and they were abducted by the Maoist and taken towards
SAHEDAPAT where Phuddin Thakur (PW 2) was let to go free but
before Phuddin Thakur was released Lal Jai Kishore Nath Sahdeo, Lal
Pramod Nath Sahdeo and Lal Bal Kishore Nath Sahdeo were shot dead
by the extremists.
75. In this backdrop the only eye witness of murder is none other
than Phuddin Thakur (PW 2). From perusal of the deposition of Phuddin
Thakur (PW 2) as quoted hereinabove it is evident that he had stated
that during the relevant time he had gone to Marayan Forest along with
Bal Kishore Nath Sahdeo, Jai Kishore Nath Sahdeo, Pramod Nath
Sahdeo, Praveen Nath Sahdeo, Pappu Lal Sahdeo and Anil Nath Sahdeo
in order to monitor cultivation work and during their visit they stayed in
34
2026:JHHC:6726-DB
the hut of Chhotu Munda which was situated in the Marayan Forest. On
the next day at about 05.00 p.m they were preparing themselves to return
from the Jungle and at that time he, Jai Kishore Nath Sahdeo, Bal
Kishore Nath Sahdeo and Pramod Nath Sahdeo were present in the hut
whereas remaining persons had gone out in the Jungle.
76. This witness has specifically deposed that at that time 50-60
numbers of extremists surrounded the hut and after enquiring about their
identity assaulted them, tied their hands and abducted all four of them
and moved towards SAHEDAPAT. When they reached near about
SAHEDAPAT, they were made to sit and again their identify was
enquired. When all the four persons disclosed their identity then this
witness was made to sit separately and in his presence the remaining
three were shot dead.
77. P.W.2 has identified the accused Kameshwar Yadav who was
present in the Court and further identified him as the person who had
fired and shot dead the three persons.
78. From perusal of the materials available on record it is evident
that PW 2 is the solitary witness so far as murder of Lal Jai Kishore Nath
Sahdeo, Lal Pramod Nath Sahdeo and Lal Bal Kishore Nath Sahdeo is
concerned. Thus, the evidence adduced by the prosecution on this issue
is testimony of PW 2 is the sole eye witness of the murder of said three
persons and has emphatically stated that all the three persons had
succumbed to fatal injuries sustained by them due to gunshots the
evening of 21/03/2015 .
35
2026:JHHC:6726-DB
79. The Doctor PW 5 in his postmortem report as well as in his
evidence has confirmed that the death of the three deceased had occurred
due to multiple gunshot injury. From the evidence of Investigating
Officer (PW 8) also, it is evident that the dead body of the deceased was
seen by the Police Officer and had prepared the inquest report (Ext.13
series) mentioning the injuries he had observed on the dead body of the
deceased.
80. Thus, from the aforesaid fact it is evident that as per the
Phuddin Thakur was kidnapped by extremist mob along with the
deceased persons and this fact has been corroborated from the testimony
of the P.W.1 and P.W.7. The second part of alleged occurrence i.e
murder of all three deceased, was witnessed by the sole witness Phuddin
Thakur (P.W.2) who categorically stated that when all the four persons
disclosed their identity then this witness was made to sit separately and
in his presence the remaining three were shot dead and this witness
further identified the present appellant being part of the extremist mob
had fired and shot dead the three persons. The statement of P.W.2 has
fully been substantiated by the P.W.5 doctor who had conducted autopsy
on the body of the deceased persons had stated that death of the said
persons was caused due to gunshot injury.
81. So far the place of occurrence is concerned, PW 1, PW 2 and
PW 7 who were present in the Jungle on the date of occurrence have
categorically stated that there are two places of occurrence viz. the first
place of occurrence is the hut of Chhotu Munda from where all the three
36
2026:JHHC:6726-DB
deceased and Phuddin Thakur were abducted and the second place of
occurrence is situated in a Jungle at a distance of five kilometers from
SAHEDAPAT village where three persons were shot dead. The place of
occurrence is also confirmed by the evidence of the Investigating Officer
who has testified about the place of occurrence.
82. Further it is the case of the prosecution that after alleged
occurrence, P.W.2 Phuddin Thakur somehow managed to reached the
village Murmu at about 05.00 a.m. on 23/03/2015 where he informed
about the occurrence to the family members of the deceased. This fact
has been substantiated by PW 1, PW 2, PW 4 and PW 7 and after
knowing about the incidence the family members of the deceased and the
villagers in large number rushed towards the place of occurrence and
brought the dead bodies back to village Murmu where subsequently the
police arrived and inquest (Ext.13 series) was prepared in the village.
83. The Investigating officer has testified that when he saw the
dead body they were laden on a Truck. This fact is also supported by PW
1, PW 4 and PW 7 who have stated that they had brought the dead
bodies of the deceased on a Truck from the jungle.
84. It is evident from record that the postmortem of the dead bodies
was conducted by a Board of Doctors at Sadar Hospital, Latehar and the
Investigating officer obtained the post mortem reports (Ext.3 series)
from Sadar Hospital, Latehar.
37
2026:JHHC:6726-DB
85. In the preceding paragraph this Court has already discussed the
evidence of Phuddin Thakur (PW 2) who is solitary witness of the
occurrence of murder and further the evidence of Doctor (PW 5) who
found gunshot injuries on the body of the deceased which goes on to
corroborate the testimony of PW 2 that he saw the accused causing
gunshot injury upon the person of the deceased resulting into their death.
86. The aforesaid evidence further finds support from the fact that
some empty cartridges were picked up by the witnesses and same was
handed over to the police and for which production-cum-seizure list was
prepared and the same was signed by Lal Sujit Nath Sahdeo (PW 4) and
Manoj Kumar Singh (PW 3) who have identified their signatures on the
production-cum-seizure list (Ext.2 series).
87. From testimony of the Investigating officer, it is evident that the
empty cartridges were sent to State Forensic Science Laboratory for
examination its report was submitted (Ext.19). It has come on record that
the empty cartridges were also produced in the Court and marked as
Material Exhibits II and III series and these empty cartridges are stated to
be the one by which three persons were murdered.
88. At this juncture it requires to refer herein the settled position of
law as discussed and referred hereinabove that there is no legal
impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single
witness but the testimony of said witness should be trustworthy and
inspire confidence in mind of the Court. Herein since the testimony of
P.W.2 has fully been corroborated by the testimony of PW.1, P.W.7 and
38
2026:JHHC:6726-DB
PW.5, further there is no deviation in the cross-examination of this
witness this Court is of the view that evidence of P.W.2 is reliable and
trustworthy.
89. In nutshell on the basis of discussion made hereinabove it is
evident that the accused/appellant was a member of unlawful assembly
and the eye witnesses have stated that they were armed with automatic
weapons. There is no material or cogent evidence available on record to
disbelieve their testimonies. Further from the discussions made in the
preceding paragraphs it is the case of the prosecution that Lal Jai Kishore
Nath Sahdeo, Lal Pramod Nath Sahdeo and Lal Bal Kishore Nath
Sahdeo were kidnapped firstly and thereafter murdered by the use of fire
arm. This fact has been substantiated by testimony of PW 1, PW 2 and
PW 7 who are eye witnesses of the occurrence.
90. This fact has further been validated by the evidence of the
Doctor PW 5 and postmortem report Ext.3 series whereby the Doctor
conducting the postmortem found anti-mortem gunshot injuries on the
dead bodies of the deceased. Further PW 2 who is the eye witness of the
incidence has stated in his evidence that the accused/appellant has
committed culpable homicide of the deceased by fire arm. This fact is
further corroborated from the FSL Report wherein it has come that
recovered and seized empty cartridges are stated to be the one by which
three persons were murdered, thus Evidence is irresistible on the fact that
there was use of fire arm in commission of the said incidence. Further it
is evident from Ext.18 which is letter no. 246 dated 17/01/2017 which
39
2026:JHHC:6726-DB
has been issued by the Superintendent of Police, Lohardaga through
which it has been certified that according to the confidential letter no.
2535/V.Sa.(T.C) dated 27/09/2014 and letter no. 1236/V.Sa.(T.C) dated
28/05/2015 it has been declared that the accused/appellant Kameshwar
Yadav is an active member of C.P.I (Marxist) which is a banned outfit.
91. Thus, on careful examination of the evidence of the witnesses
particularly the testimony of PW 2 there appears no reason to disbelieve
their testimony rather their testimony not only inspires confidence but
also have a quality of credence and the evidence of PW 2 is direct
evidence with regard to the second part of occurrence i.e. murder of the
said three persons, which is most acceptable in terms of Section 60 of
the Indian Evidence Act.From impugned judgment, it is evident the
learned trial Court after appreciating all the evidences has also
considered P.W.2 as reliable and trustworthy witness, as such the said
finding of learned trial Court requires no interference.
92. Coming to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the
appellant that materials witness i.e. Chhotu Munda have not been
produced and examined by the prosecution and its cast doubt upon the
prosecution story.
93. This Court has already discussed the settled proposition of law
enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sambhu Das v.
State of Assam(supra) that that due to non-examination of particular
witnesses, the prosecution story will not vitiate in a case where the
40
2026:JHHC:6726-DB
prosecution version is being corroborated by eye-witness, as the case
herein.
94. Further it is evident from testimony of the I.O. (PW 8) who at
paragraph 18 has stated that he recorded the statement of Chhotu Munda
who stated that on the date of occurrence he went to work as a daily
wager in Latehar Police line. For ready reference the paragraph 18 of the
testimony of the investigating officer is being quoted as under:
“18. िद० 24.03.2015 को सा ी डे डका मु ा, मोटु मु ा, िवलसन टोपनो का बयान
िलया। िद० 25.03.2015 को सा ी लाल बालमुकु नाथ साहदे व का बयान ाम मुरमू
म िलया। िद० 26.03.2015 को रिव िसंह, छोटु मु ा, अिनता कुमारी का बयान िलया।
छोटु मु ा ने अपने बयान म बताया िक वो घटना के िदन लातेहार पुिलस लाईन म
मजदू री का काम करने गया था।अिनता कुमारी ने अपने बयान म घटना का समथन
िकया।”
95. Thus, in the aforesaid circumstances even if Chhotu Munda
would have been examined nothing material would have been extracted
from his evidence. From impugned judgment it is evident that some
charge-sheeted witnesses have been given up because they were fearful
because of the extremists or gained by the accused persons.
96. It requires to refer herein that in series of Judgments, the
Hon’ble Apex Court has rendered that the evidence should not be
counted but weighed. Further it is not in dispute that ordinarily the
prosecution should examine all witnesses whose names have been
mentioned in the charge sheet but then the same cannot be said to be a
41
2026:JHHC:6726-DB
rule having universal application and each case has to be considered on
his own facts. Further, it is not necessary for the prosecution to multiply
witnesses, if it chooses to rely upon the evidence of the eye witnesses
examined by it, which it considers sufficient to prove the case of the
prosecution and if their evidence appears to be truthful, reliable and
acceptable, the mere fact that some other witnesses have not been
examined, will not adversely affect the case of the prosecution, which is
the case herein.
97. Thus, once the witnesses examined by the prosecution are relied
by the Court and the Court comes to the conclusion that their evidence is
trust worthy and the non-examination of other so called material
witnesses will not affect the credibility of these witnesses, thus the
contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that few charge sheet
witnesses have not been examined caused serious dent to the prosecution
case is not fit to be accepted.
98. It has also been contended herein that statement of P.W.2 has
been recorded by the police belatedly therefore the veracity of the
testimony of P.W.2 is doubtful.
99. In the aforesaid context it needs to refer herein that statement of
the witnesses recorded before the police can only be used in order to
contradict the statement of the said witnesses in examination-in-chief.
Further it is settled proposition of law as discussed and referred in the
preceding paragraphs that that it cannot be laid down as a rule of
universal application that if there is any delay in examination of a
42
2026:JHHC:6726-DB
particular witness, under section 161 Cr.P.C. the prosecution version
becomes suspect. It would depend upon several factors. If the
explanation offered for the delayed examination, is plausible and
acceptable, prosecution case cannot be doubted.
100. From the testimony of the Investigating officer it appears that
this witness has not been specifically cross-examined on the issue of
delay recording of the statement of P.W.2 and rather in the cross-
examination at para-50 this witness has categorically stated that he has
taken the statement of the Phuddin Thakur (P.W.2) along with other
witnesses on 22.03.2015i.e. next day of occurrence, for ready reference
the said paragraph of testimony is being quoted herein which reads as
under:
“50. पुिलस अधी क महोदय ारा मौ खक आदे श पर एस०आई० धनेश
शमा ारा लाल दीपनाथ साहदे व का फद बयान िलया गया। म वहां मौजूद
था। फद बयान म ंय ले कर थाना गया था। िद० 22.03.2015 को समय
19.00 बजे फद बयान थाना ले कर गया था। िद० 22.03.2015 को गवाहों का
बयान िजसम लाल दीपनाथ साहदे व, फुदीन ठाकुर, वीण नाथ साहदे व,
लाल अरिव नाथ साहदे व, लाल सुिजत नाथ साहदे व, िबनोद कुमार िसंह,
मनोज कुमार िसंह वगैरह का बयान िद० 22.03.2015 को मुरमू गांव म िलया
था। इनका बयान कां ड दज होने के पूव िलया गया था।”
101. In the instant case since P.W.2 in his examination-in-chief and
in cross-examination has specifically stated about the culpability of the
present appellant and the same has been substantiated by P.W.5 and
P.W.7 and P.W.8 in their testimony, therefore, even the delay in
recording of the statement of P.W.2 has no impact on the case of the
prosecution.
43
2026:JHHC:6726-DB
102. Further the issue of tampering of the evidences of the place of
occurrence has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant.
Admittedly as per the case of the prosecution the dead bodies of the
deceased were removed from the place of occurrence and were loaded on
a Truck and carried away to the Murmu village. This fact finds
validation from the evidence of Investigating officer (PW 8) who has
testified that he prepared the inquest report of the dead bodies which he
found on a Truck. It is true that the dead bodies were removed from the
place of occurrence but the I.O. who conducted the inquest found
gunshot injuries on the dead body which is further corroborated by the
testimony of Doctor PW 5 who found anti-mortem gunshot injury on the
dead bodies of the deceased. Further as discussed hereinabove that the
sole eye witness namely Phuddin Thakur (PW 2) has specifically stated
that the accused caused death of the deceased persons with fire arm.
Thus, in the presence of aforesaid clinching evidence, the entire
prosecution case cannot be vitiated merely on the ground that the inquest
report has been prepared other than the place of occurrence.
103. Further, it is settled position of law that the scope of inquest is
limited and is confined to ascertainment of apparent cause of death.
Basic purpose of holding an inquest is to report cause of death i.e.
suicidal, homicidal or accidental etc. and details of the overt act need not
be recorded in the inquest report.
104. Further Preparation of inquest report is a part of investigation
within the meaning of procedural law and the same cannot be termed as
44
2026:JHHC:6726-DB
substantive evidence and discrepancy occurring therein can neither be
termed to be fatal nor even a suspicious circumstance, which would
warrant a benefit to the accused in the presence of other clinching
evidence, reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Munshi Prasad & others Vs.
State of Bihar AIR 2001 SC 3031.
105. In the present case, since the Investigating Officer has found
gunshot injuries in the inquest report (Ext 13 series and the evidence of
PW 2 has been fully substantiated by other material evidences and his
evidence inspires confidence being of unimpeachable character,
therefore the submission of the learned counsel for the accused/appellant
that the preparation of the inquest report other than place of occurrence
has eroded the credibility of the prosecution case is not fit to be accepted.
106. The learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that
that the delay in lodging FIR has not been explained by the prosecution,
but herein as evident from the prosecution case that it is triple murder of
the members of the same Family , therefore it is natural that the family
members were in a state of shock and in the state of dismay and grief and
further since the murder was caused by extremist mob led by the present
appellant and it might cause fear in the mind of the witnesses therefore,
delay of two days in instituting the FIR is not sufficient enough to cast
doubt upon the prosecution case.
107. On the basis of discussion made hereinabove, the prosecution
case is based upon the evidence of solitary eye witness i.e. Phuddin
45
2026:JHHC:6726-DB
Thakur (PW 2) and he is trustworthy reliable witness and his evidence
coupled with the evidence of PW 7 informant, Doctor (PW 5) and I.O.
(PW 8) fully establishes the factum of the prosecution case that in the
evening of 21/03/2015 the accused in furtherance of the common object
of unlawful assembly abducted Lal Jai Kishore Nath Sahdeo, Lal
Pramod Nath Sahdeo and Lal Bal Kishore Nath Sahdeo and committed
culpable homicide of these three persons using fire arm.
108. This Court on the basis of the discussion so made hereinabove
and taking into consideration the testimony of P.W-2 having been
corroborated with the testimony of the other witnesses, P.W.7 and PW.5
the doctor and P.W.8 investigating officer respectively and relying upon
the principle laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bipin
Kumar Mondal (supra) and the ratio rendered by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in other cases as referred and discussed in preceding paragraphs,
is of the view that prosecution has successfully established its case
against the present appellant.
109. This Court, after having discussed the factual aspect and legal
position and considering the finding recorded by the learned trial Court,
is of the view that the learned trial Court after giving its thoughtful
consideration to the testimony of sole eye witness (P.W. 2) of the second
part of the occurrence being corroborated by the testimony of doctor
(P.W.5) and investigating officer (PW.8) has come to the conclusion that
the prosecution has been able to prove the charge beyond all shadow of
46
2026:JHHC:6726-DB
doubt against the present appellant, therefore, requires no interference by
this Court.
110. Accordingly, the instant appeals stand dismissed.
111. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
112. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court
concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this Judgment.
I agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Jharkhand High Court
Dated: 12 /03/2026
KNR/AFR
Uploaded On-13 /03 /2026
47