Jharkhand High Court
Manjhi Sumbrui vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 8 April, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 281 of 1999(R)
[Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated
20.04.1999 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge,
Chaibasa, in Sessions Case No.257 of 1997]
1. Manjhi Sumbrui
2. Bijoy Sumbrui
3. Turi Sumbrui
All are sons of Late Mangta Sumbrui @ Sidiu Sambrui
and residents of village Karkata, P.S. Muffasil Chaibasa,
District Singhbhum (West). ... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) ... ... Respondent
-----
With
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 102 of 1999(R)
-----
Dildar Sundi, son of Lawkan Suri, resident of village Bara
Goira, P.S. Mufassil, District Singhbhum West.
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) ... ... Respondent
-----
With
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 136 of 1999(R)
-----
Ramesh Sundi, S/o Surendra Sundi, R/o Village Baraguira,
P.S. Chaibasa Muffasil, District Singhbhum (West).
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) ... ... Respondent
-----
With
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 158 of 1999(R)
-----
1. Nauru Sundi, S/o late Bijay Sundi (No.1)
2. Chhota @ Vijay Sundi, S/o Sri Pradhan Sundi (No.4)
3. Bhagwan Sundi (No.11)
4. Chamak Lal Sundi (No.15) All sons of Sri Singrai Sundi
5. Bishkishan Sundi (No.16)
6. Pradhan Sundi, S/o Late Tijun Sundi (No.17)
7. Chogo Sundi, S/o Late Tikun Sundi (No.24)
8. Ganga Sundi, S/o Son of Sri Durga Sundi (No.7)
9. Bagun Sundi @ Mutu Sundi, S/o Late Gano Sundi (No.3)
10. Babu Lal Sundi, S/o Chhote Kaira Sundi (No.28)
11. Damu Sundi, S/o late Tikun Sundi (No.13)
1
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
All are residents of village-Bara Guira, P.S. Muffassil,
Chaibasa, District-Singhbhum (West).
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) ... ... Respondent
-----
With
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 159 of 1999(R)
-----
Anand Sundi, Son of Sri Jugal Sundi, Resident of village Bara
Guira, P.O. Bara Guira, P.S. Mufassil, Singhbhum (West).
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) ... ... Respondent
-----
With
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 269 of 1999(R)
-----
1. Ram Singh Sundi, s/o Late Mangta Sundi (No.25)
2. Dubraj Purty, s/o Late Turi Purty (No.30)
3. Barju Sundi, s/o Sri Durga Sundi (no.33).
4. Nara Purty, s/o Late Patar Purty (No.27)
All are residents of village-Bara Guira, P.S. Muffasil,
Chaibasa, District-Singhbhum West.
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) ... ... Respondent
-------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
.....
[Cr. A.281/99 & 102/99]
Amicus Curiae : Mr. Manjeet Kr. Chaudhary, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl.P.P.
: Mr. Satish Kr. Keshri, A.P.P.
[Cr. A.136/99 & 158/99]
Amicus Curiae : Mr. Imran Beig, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl.P.P.
: Mr. Satish Kr. Keshri, A.P.P.
[Cr. A.159/99 & 269/99]
Amicus Curiae : Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl.P.P.
: Mr. Satish Kr. Keshri, A.P.P.
.....
2
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
C.A.V. on 12.03.2026 Pronounced on 08/04/2026
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. These appeals are directed against the Judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 20.04.1999
passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge,
Chaibasa, in Sessions Case No.257 of 1997 whereby and
whereunder the appellants have been held guilty and
convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 364/149
and 302/149 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for life. All the appellants have also been
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the
I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years. The
appellants, namely Bijoy Sumbrui and Turi Sumbrui have
been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 148
of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years each
and the remaining 19 surviving appellants have been
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 147 of the
I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year each.
Besides the substantive punishment convict Damu Sundi
has been ordered to pay fine of Rs.7000/- and in default of
making payment of fine further imprisonment for three years
have been imposed upon him whereas remaining convicts
have been directed to make payment of fine of Rs.2000/-
each and in default of payment of fine further imprisonment
3
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
for two years. All the sentences were directed to run
concurrently.
2. It needs to refer herein that the appeals had been filed
by learned counsels, namely, Praveen Kumar, Madhav
Prasad, Niraj Kumar and Sudhir Kumar Sinha on the basis of
due Vakalatnama which are available on record.
3. The case was taken up on 27.03.2025 but on that date
none of the counsel had appeared to represent the
appellants. Thereafter, when the case was taken up on
20.06.2025, the Court was informed about the death of Mr.
Praveen Kumar, one of the counsel on record, during the
COVID period. On that date the other counsel, namely,
namely, Madhav Prasad, Niraj Kumar and Sudhir Kumar
Sinha, had not represented the appellants.
4. This Court has also verified from the record that on the
date, i.e., on 20.06.2025, when the Amicus Curiae were
appointed, the name of the counsel namely, namely, Madhav
Prasad, Niraj Kumar and Sudhir Kumar Sinha were being
reflected in the daily cause list but even then they have
chosen not to appear.
5. This Court, therefore, has appointed the Amicus Curiae,
as would be evident from the order dated 20.06.2025 with a
direction upon the Registry to provide the paper books to
them. It is evident from the office note dated 03.07.2025, the
4
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
paper books have been supplied to the learned Amicus
Curiae.
6. Thereafter, the matter was argued by the learned
Amicus Curiae representing the case of each appellant and
they have been heard at length.
7. After conclusion of argument, the judgment was
reserved.
8. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to mention that
appellant Turam Gope in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.102 of 1999(R),
appellants Narsingh Sundi and Daso Sundi in Cr. Appeal
(DB) No.158 of 1999 (R) and appellant Roro Puti in Cr.
Appeal (DB) No.269 of 1999 (R) have died during the
pendency of the instant appeals and, as such, the appeals
qua the aforesaid appellants have been abated.
9. Further, on perusal of the counter affidavit dated
21.12.2023, filed by the state it has been stated that
appellant Hajura Sumbrui in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.281 of
1999(R) and appellant Bagun Sundi, S/o Late Kaira Sundi in
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.158 of 1999(R) have died. Further, in
counter affidavit dated 19.12.2023, filed by the State it has
been stated that appellant Behra Purty in Cr. Appeal (DB)
No.159 of 1999(R) and appellant Lal Singh Sundi in Cr.
Appeal (DB) No.269 of 1999(R) have died. Hence, the appeals
qua the aforesaid appellants stands abated.
5
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
10. Here it is pertinent to note that one of the convict Chera
Hessa had also filed criminal appeal being Cr. Appeal (DB)
No.180 of 1999(R). Appellant Chera Hessa was granted
remission in sentence by the State Sentence Remission Board
vide notification dated 08.07.2011, after completion of twenty
years in custody. Hence, Coordinate Bench of this Court by
order dated 26.04.2018, had disposed the appeal of the
appellant Chera Hessa, as it had become infructuous.
11. It is also pertinent to mention that these appeals were
heard and dismissed vide judgment dated 16.06.2011 by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court. The said judgment was
challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court by the appellants
in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1169 – 1170 of 2013 (arising out of
SLP (Crl) No.1145 – 1146 of 2013).
12. The Hon’ble Apex Court, vide order dated 12.08.2013
had set aside the judgment dated 16.06.2011 and remanded
the matter back to the High Court for a fresh hearing and
disposal of the criminal appeals on own merits and in
accordance with law.
13. Therefore, these appeals have been heard and are being
disposed of by this common judgment.
Factual Matrix
14. The prosecution case as stated in the fardbeyan (Ext.- 2)
of Shanti Kui (P.W.-1), the informant of this case recorded on
24.02.1997 at 16.00 hours at Village Baraguira by S.I.
6
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
Ratanlal Sinha of Muffasil, Police Station, in brief, is that in
the night of preceding Saturday (22.02.1997) the informant
Shanti Kui along with her family members were sleeping in
the house of her father situated at Village Baraguira. At
about 9.00 P.M. one man in drunken state entered into the
house and caught hold of Gangi Kui (P.W.-9). She raised
alarm upon which her uncle, dada and mousa woke up and
apprehended him and assaulted him. He disclosed his name
as Hajura Sumbrui of village Karkata and after assault he
was let off, then, they slept. That boy (Hajura Sumbrui) spent
the night hour at the house of his maternal uncle at Village
Bara Guira.
15. Further case of the prosecution is that on the following
Sunday on 23.02.1997 at about 3.00 Ρ.Μ. accused persons,
namely, (1) Damu Sundi Son of Tikun Sundi who is a Village
Munda, (2) Daso Sundi Son of Sidiu Sundi, (3) Bagun Sundi
Matu, son of Gono Sundi, (4) Lal Singh Sundi, son of Jogar
Sundi, (5) Choko Sundi son of Tikun Sundi,(6)Chhota @ Bijay
Sundi, (7) Nara Purty Son of Patar Purty, (8) Roro Purty Son
of Turi Purty, (9) Dubraj Purty Son of Majhi Purty, (10)
Pradhan Sundi Son of Tikun Sundi, (11) Behra Purty son of
Basu Purty, (12) Dildar Sundi, son of Lokan Sundi, (13)
Bhagwan Sundi, son of Roja Sundi, (14) Bagun Sundi, son of
Kaira Sundi, (15) Babulal Sundi, son of Chhota Kaira Sundi,
(16) Anand Sundi, son of Jungl Sundi, (17) Bishkashan
Sundi, son of Roja Sundi, (18) Chamak Lal Sundi, son of
7
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
Singrai Sundi, (19) Ram Singh Sundi, son of Mangta Sundi,
(20) Ramesh Sundi, son of Surendra Sundi, (21) Turam Gope
Son of Nando Gope, (22) Ganga Sundi, son of Durga Sundi,
(23) Narsingh Sundi, son of Kanu Sundi, (24) Barjo Sundi,
son of Duga Sundi, (25) Nauru Sundi, son of Bijay Sundi, all
residents of Village Baraguira and (26) Lakho Soy, son of Not
known. (27) Laxman Sumbrui, son of Budhram Sumbrui.
(28) Turi Sumbrui, son of Mangta Sumbrui: (29) Majhi
Sumbrui, son of Mangta Sumbrui, (30) Sidiu Sumbrui, son of
Not known, (31) Bijay Sumbrai, son of Not known, (32)
Chatar Hessa, son of Markando Hessa, (33) Hajura Sumbrui,
son of not known all residents of Village Karketta and (34)
Bablu who was residing at the house of Mangta Sundi at
Village Baraguira, along with some unknown persons
variously armed with lathi, spear, bows and arrows under the
leadership of Damu Sundi, the Village Munda (village
headman) came to the house of the informant at village
Baraguira and they all caught hold of Har Singh Banra of
Village Gopalpur, P.S. Keraikella, District West Singhbhum,
Ram Rai Banra of Village Amita, P.S. Chaibasa Muffasil,
District West Singhbhüm and Sonda Sundi of Village
Baraguira, P.S. Muffasil Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum
and while badly assaulting them they took them away at the
house of Damu Sundi, the Village Munda where also they
assaulted the aforesaid three persons. The members of the
mob threatened the informant and other family members
8
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
that if they would inform the aforesaid incident to anybody
going out of the village, they will be murdered. The members
of the mob were also saying that why they had assaulted the
the boy who had misbehaved with the girl.
16. Further case of the prosecution is that the informant
sent the children of their house at the house of the Village
Munda (Damu Sundi) and the children on coming back
informed that members of the mob were assaulting the three
persons. The informant and other family members, out of
fear, left their house and they spent the night hour of Sunday
in Village Pataguira at the house of Kunwar Sundi. In the
following morning (i.e. on 24.02.1997), the informant and the
remaining family members went to Muffasil Police Station
and by that time the informant was not aware of the
condition of the three persons of her family who had been
taken away by the members of the mob by Village Munda
and others.
17. The informant and the remaining family members of her
family came back to village along with police and on coming
back to Village she along with the police went to the house of
Village Munda who disclosed that aforesaid three male
persons of her family had fled away in the night hour when
he had gone out to his house for taking rice beer.
18. It has further been alleged that the members of the
mob under the leadership of Damu Sundi had taken away
9
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
the aforesaid three male persons from their house and
assaulting them as they had assaulted the boy who had
misbehaved with the girl of her house. The informant
believed that the members of the mob had committed the
murder of the aforesaid three persons and they got
disappeared their dead bodies.
19. The further case of the prosecution is that the informant
side was on litigating term relating to land with Village
Munda from before and the informant side had won the
litigation and due to that the village Munda on getting the
opportunity committed the occurrence aforesaid with the
help of co-accused persons.
20. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Muffasil
P.S. case no. 22/1997 dated 24.02.1997 was registered
under Sections 147/148/149/341/342/323/452/354/364
I.P.C. against the 34 named accused persons and
subsequently Sections 302 and 201 of the I.P.C. were added.
21. On the disclosure made by the accused Damu Sundi, in
his confessional statement, dead bodies of Sonda Sundi, Ram
Rai Banra and Har Singh Banra, were recovered from Roro
River in presence of the informant, her mother and sister
from Runku Ekir Ghat of river Roro in Village Chhota
Khunta, by the divers Tulsi Karwa and Paltu Karwa, who
took out the dead bodies from river waters.
10
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
22. On completing the investigation, the investigating
Officer submitted chargesheet against the 34 accused
persons under Sections 147/148/149/341/342/323/452/
354/364/302/201 of the I.P.C and accordingly, cognizance
was taken. Co-accused Bablu was found juvenile and as
such his case was separated and the case of accused persons
was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.
23. Charges were framed under against the 33 accused
persons under sections 148,452/149,364/149,302/149 and
201 of IPC. Separate charge was framed against the accused
Hajura Sumbrui (since dead) under section 354 of IPC.
Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
24. The prosecution has altogether examined 10 witnesses
out of whom P.W.-1 Shanti Kui, is the informant of the case
and she is daughter of deceased Sonda Sundi and wife of
deceased Har Singh Banra; P.W.-5 Mecho Banra, is daughter
of deceased Sonda Sundi and wife of deceased Ram Rai
Banra; P.W.-6 Nandi Banra, is daughter of deceased Ram Rai
Banra; P.W.-7 Nandi Kui, is wife of deceased Sonda Sundi;
P.W.-8 Mangal Singh Banra, is son of deceased Har Singh
Banra and P.W.-9 is Gangi Kui.
25. P.W.-4 Dr. Bijay Kumar Singh, is the doctor who had
conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the
deceased Sonda Sundi, Har Singh Banra and Ram Rai
Banra. P.W.-10 Anirudh Prasad Sharma, is the investigating
11
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
office of the case and P.W.-2 Paltu Karwa and P.W.-3 Tulsi
Karwa, are the divers.
26. The trial Court, after recording the evidence of
witnesses, examination-in-chief and cross-examination,
recorded the statement of the accused person, found the
charges levelled against the appellants proved beyond all
reasonable doubts.
27. Accordingly, the appellants have been inter alia found
guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under
Sections 364/149, 302/149 and 201 of I.P.C.
28. The aforesaid order of conviction and sentence is
subject matter of instant appeals.
Submission of the learned amicus curiae for the
appellants:
29. Learned amicus curiae for the appellants has submitted
that the impugned Judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by the learned trial court cannot be sustained
in the eyes of law.
30. The following grounds have been taken by the learned
amicus curiae for the appellants in assailing the impugned
judgment of conviction: –
(i) The appellants have been falsely implicated in this
case and the prosecution case suffers from several
infirmities and improbabilities.
12
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
(ii) The ground has been taken that the F.I.R. has
been created subsequently since the F.I.R. has
been sent to court after two days, that is, on
26.02.1997 which is evident from the statement of
P.W.-10 who has clearly stated that Ratan Lal
Sinha on 24.02.1997 had recorded the fardbeyan
with him at the police station and he instituted the
case at 17.00 Hrs on the same day.
(iii) It has also been submitted that the investigating
officer has noted in para-3 of the case-diary that
Nandi Kui is the informant of this case and he
visited the place of occurrence which was situated
at Bara Lagia whereas the fact is that place of
occurrence is Bara Guira and not Bara Lagia
which means that the entire prosecution case has
is a concocted story.
(iv) It has also been submitted that the learned trial
court failed to appreciate that the Station Diary
Entry No. 510 dated 24.02.1997, which was noted
on the basis of statement of informant and others
has not been brought on record and as such
adverse inference may be drawn.
(v) It has also been submitted that there is no
evidence that accused/appellants shared
common object of unlawful assembly, as such,
criminal liability against the appellants
13
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
under section 149 of the Indian Penal Code cannot
be made out.
(vi) There is no specific allegation against the
appellants, rather, the allegations are general and
omnibus, as such, the prosecution has also
miserably failed to establish the charges said to
have been proved beyond all reasonable doubts.
(vii) It has also been submitted that there is no specific
allegation against the appellants, rather, the
allegations are general and omnibus, as such, the
prosecution has also miserably failed to establish
the charges said to have been proved beyond all
reasonable doubts.
(viii) The learned trial court also failed to appreciate
that the investigating officer did not send the blood
stained earth for chemical examination in order to
ascertain as to whether the seized blood stained
earth was human blood or not.
(ix) Learned trial court also failed to appreciate that
the statements of the witnesses are contradictory
and there are material contradictions in the
testimonies of the witnesses.
(x) It has also been submitted that the learned trial
did not take into account that all the witnesses are
the relatives of the deceased persons and no
14
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
villager/independent witness was examined to
corroborate the prosecution story.
(xi) It has been submitted that the learned trial court
has explained all circumstances and situations
unfavorable to the prosecution by giving own logic
and unfounded reasons.
31. The learned amicus curiae for the appellants, based
upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that, it is a case
where the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused
persons/appellants and thus, the impugned judgment of
conviction which has been passed against the appellants is fit
to be interfered with.
Submission of the learned counsel for the State:
32. Per contra, Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, learned Special
Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, has submitted by
taking the following grounds in defending the impugned
judgment:
(i) It is a case where the prosecution has been able to
prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt.
(ii) The prosecution witnesses have conclusively
supported the prosecution version.
(iii) Informant P.W.-1, P.W-5, P.W.-6, P.W.-7 and P.W.-
9, are the eye witnesses to the incident of
abduction of the three deceased persons from the
15
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
house and they have stood in their cross-
examination.
(iv) The three dead bodies were recovered on the
disclosure made by the accused Damu Sundi from
the river Roro which were tied with stone boulder
and the divers P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 had taken out
the three bodies from river water in presence of
accused persons.
(v) It has been submitted that chain of circumstances
is complete proving the guilt of the appellants
under sections 364/149, 302/149 and 201 of IPC.
33. Learned counsel for the State, on the basis of the
aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the impugned
judgment suffers from no infirmity and needs no interference.
Analysis
34. 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.
35. We have also gone through the testimonies of the
witnesses as available in the trial court records as also the
exhibits.
36. 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.
16
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
37. In this case the prosecution has examined altogether 10
witnesses. The extracts of their depositions are being referred
herein below.
38. P.W.-1 Shanti Kui is the wife of Har Singh Banra
(deceased). She has stated in her evidence that one year and
three months before on the day of Saturday (i.e. 22.02.1997)
at 9.00 P.M., in the night, she along with her husband, her
children, mother and father were present in the house of her
deceased father Sonda Sundi at Village Bara Guira. Gangi Kui
(P.W.-9) was sleeping at the verandah of the house. They
heard cry of Gangi Kui and then she and other family
members of the house went to Gangi Kui. On going there, they
found Hajura Sundi (since dead) catching hold of Gangi Kui.
Then, Sonda Sundi, Har Singh Sundi and Ram Rai Sundi
(deceased persons) had beaten Hajura Sumbrui and drove him
out.
39. Informant further stated that one day after the aforesaid
occurrence (i.e. on 23.02.1997) at about 3:00 P.M., 34 persons
together variously armed with bow and arrow, lathi and spear
came to the house of her deceased father and they caught hold
of Sonda Sundi, Ram Rai Banra and Har Singh Banra and tied
them with string. Members of the unlawful assembly had
taken the three persons at the house of Damu Sundi, who was
village Munda (the headman of the village), at that time.
Informant had identified all the accused persons present in
the dock and said all these accused persons had joined the
17
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
occurrence. Informant had named Damu Sundi, Daso Sundi,
Bagun Sundi, Har Singh Sundi, Chogo Sundi, Bijay Sundi,
Nara Purty, Roro Purty, Dubraj Purty, Pradhan Sunda, Bera
Purty (Behra Purty), Dildar Sundi, Anand Sundi, Bishkishan
Sundi, Chamak Lal Sundi, Bhagwan Sundi, Bagun Sundi,
Babulal Sundi, Ram Singh Sundi, Ramesh Sundi, Turam
Gope, Ganga Sundi, Narsingh Sundi, Barjo Sundi, Neru
Sundi, Lakshman Sumbrui, Turi Sumbrui, Majhi Sundi, Sidiu
Sundi, Bijay Sumbrui, Hajura Sundi, Lako Soy, Bablu
Sumbrui (not on trial) and stated that all these accused
persons had participated in the aforesaid occurrence.
40. Informant further stated that at the time of abduction of
Sonda Sundi, Ram Rai Banra and Har Singh Banra from the
house of the informant’s father (deceased Sonda Sundi)
aforesaid accused persons had threatened her and the other
members present at the house that if the aforesaid occurrence
would be informed to anybody, by going out of the house, by
any of them, then he will be killed.
41. Informant further stated that at about 4.00 P.M., she
sent her son Mangal Singh (P.W.-8) and daughter Nandi at the
house of Damu Sundi (headman of the village) and at about
5.00 P.M., her son Mangal Singh and daughter Nandi came
back and they informed that Sonda Sundi, Ram Rai Banra
and Har Singh Banra (deceased persons) were tied in a Neem
tree in front of the house of the Damu Sundi and they were
being assaulted.
18
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
42. Informant further stated that then she, her mother and
her children spent the night in Village Pataguira, at the house
of Kunwar and on the following day, in the morning time she
went to Muffasil Police Station and gave information of the
aforesaid occurrence to the police. Then, police had recorded
her statement at village of her father.
43. Informant further stated that after two days of the
occurrence, the dead bodies of Har Singh Banra, Sonda Sundi
and Ram Rai Banra were recovered from Runku Ekir Drain.
There were injuries on the aforesaid three dead bodies. She
has further stated that aforesaid accused persons had taken
away Ram Rai Banra, Har Singh Banra and Sonda Sundi from
the house and thereafter they committed their murder and
threw the dead bodies in the drain and each dead bodies were
tied with stone boulders.
44. Informant in her cross-examination stated that at the
time of occurrence of outraging the modesty of Gangi Kui
(P.W.-9), no villagers or residents of the locality had arrived at
the house of her father. None of the family members had
raised alarm. The occurrence of outraging the modesty of
Gangi Kui was not reported at the police station in the
following morning.
45. Informant further stated that at the time of occurrence
of taking away the three deceased persons from the house of
the deceased, Bijay Sumbrui and Lakshman Sumbrui were
taking lathi in their hands. She has stated that she along with
19
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
her husband and children, had come to the house of her
father, on the day of Maghe festival.
46. Informant had further stated in her cross-examination
that she was married twenty years before and after her
marriage she was living at the house of her husband (deceased
Har Singh Banra) but occasionally she also used to visit the
house of her father (deceased Sonda Sundi). Informant further
stated that Bijay Sumbrui, is resident of village Karkataand
and she did not know him before the occurrence, but, one of
the accused persons who participated in the occurrence was
shouting the name of Bijay Sumbrui.
47. Informant had further stated that it was night when
they had reached the house of Kunwar Sundi at Village
Pataguira and after two hours Kunwar Sundi had reached his
house. They sat on the verendah of the house of Kunwar
Sundi and she had introduction with Kunwar Sundi from
before. They gave information about the occurrence to Kunwar
Sundi.
48. In her cross-examination, informant further stated that
she had come to the house of her father on the day of Maghe
festival and on the second day of her arrival at the house of
her father, the occurrence of outraging the modesty of Gangi
Kui had taken place at 9.30 P.M. At the time of the occurrence
of outraging the modesty of Gangi Kui, she was sleeping at the
eastern verandah of the house along with her children and her
sister (P.W.-5). Informant further stated that at that time her
20
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
father and her mother (P.W.-7) were sleeping in a room of the
house. Informant corrected herself and stated that her father
was sleeping in a hut situated in the eastern portion of
courtyard of the house and the remaining two deceased
namely Ram Rai Banra and Har Singh Banra were sleeping in
a room situated in the northern portion. At the time of
outraging the modesty of Gangi Kui, Hajura Sumbrui was
assaulted by means of hands, i.e., by fists and slaps. The
occurrence of assault on Hajura Sumbrui was complete within
a few moments. On the next day of occurrence, she did not
make enquiry as to whether Hajura Sumbrui had gone where.
49. Informant further stated that when all the 34 accused
persons had come to the house of her father at that time
accused Bijay Sumbrui was armed with bow and arrow and
danda (stick) and he had rope in his hand and he had tied the
hand of her father (deceased Sonda Sundi) with rope. Choko
Sundi and Daso Sundi were armed with danda (stick). Turi
Sumbrui and Behra Purty (since dead) were armed with bow
and arrow. The rest accused persons were having danda.
50. P.W.-2 Paltu Karwa has stated in his evidence that one
year before, he and Tulsi Karwa (P.W.-3) had gone to Village
Guira and about 3 K.M. away from village Guira, police had
taken them to the river side. He and Tulsi Karwa, on diving in
the river took out three dead bodies from water of the river
and all the three bodies were tied with copper ropes with
boulders.
21
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
51. P.W.-3 Tulsi Karwa has stated in his evidence that on
being asked by the police, he and Paltu Karwa (P.W.-2) had
dived in river water and had taken out the three dead bodies
which were tied with rope.
52. P.W.-4 Dr. Bijay Kumar Singh had conducted post-
mortem examination on the dead body of the three deceased
namely Ram Rai Banra, Sonda Sundi and Har Singh Banra.
He had stated in his evidence that on 25.02.1997, he was
posted as C.A.S., in Sadar Hospital Chaibasa.
53. Doctor P.W.-4 stated that on 25.02.1997 at 3.40 P.M.,
he performed the post-mortem examination on the dead body
of Ram Rai Banra and found the following ante-mortem
injuries on his person: –
(i) Both scrotum were crushed and exposed.
(ii) Both shoulders were found badly crushed.
(iii) Chest was also crushed.
(iv) Lacerated would 4″x2″x3/4″ over the right side of the
face.
On dissection of the dead body, skull was found
fractured. Blood was found in cranium. Brain was damaged.
Chest was crushed. 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th ribs of both sides
were fractured. Blood was found in thoracic cavity. Lungs
were badly lacerated. Heart was collapsed. Chamber of heart
was empty. Abdominal organs were pale and intact. Urinary
bladder was empty. Semi-digested food was found in
stomach.
22
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
Doctor opined that time elapsed since death within 72
hours of the post-mortem examination and death was caused
due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of aforesaid injuries
which were of grievous nature caused by hard and blunt
substance.
The post-mortem report was written and signed by the
Doctor which was marked as Ext.-1.
54. On the same day at 4.05 P.M., Doctor had performed
post-mortem examination on the dead body of Sonda Sundi
and found the following ante-mortem injuries on his body:-
(i) Both scrotum were crushed and exposed.
(ii) Both arms were fractured, (iii) Both thighs were found fractured, (iv) Lacerated wound 4"x1½"x1" on the front of left side of chest.
On dissection of the dead body brain was found intact.
Covering of brain, that is, Dura was intact. Blood was found
in chest cavity. 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th ribs of left side of chest
were fractured. Lungs were lacerated. Heart was collapsed.
Chamber was empty. Abdominal organs were pale. Stomach
contained semi-digested food materials. Bladder and bowel
were empty. Both humrus and femur were fractured with big
haematoma.
Doctor opined that time elapsed since death was within
72 hours from the time of post-mortem examination and
death was due to above injuries leading to hemorrhage and
23
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
shock. Injuries were of grievous nature caused by hard and
blunt substance.
The post-mortem report was written and signed by the
Doctor which was marked as Ext.-1/1.
55. On the same day, that is, on 25.02.1997 at 4.40 P.M.,
Doctor had performed post-mortem examination on the dead
body of Har Singh Banra and found the following ante-mortem
injuries on the dead body of the deceased:
(i) Lacerated wound 2″x1″x 1½” over the left side of the
face.
(ii) Lacerated wound 2½”x1″x 1½” over right side of the
chest.
(iii) Both scrotums were found crushed and exposed.
On dissection skull was found fractured. Left temporal
bone was also fractured. Blood was found in the cranium.
Dura was ruptured. Brain was damaged. Mandible was
fractured at two sites. Heart was collapsed. Lungs were pale.
Abdominal organs were pale and intact. Stomach contained
semi-digested food materials Bladders and bowel were empty.
Doctor opined that time elapsed since death was within
72 hours from the time of post-mortem examination. Death
was due to aforesaid injuries leading to hemorrhage and
shock. The injuries were grievous caused by hard and blunt
substance.
The post-mortem report was written and signed by the
Doctor which was marked as Ext.-1/2.
24
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
56. In cross-examination, Doctor stated that semi-digested
food was found in the stomach, deceased persons are expected
to have taken food approximately three hours before the
death. Doctor stated that he mentioned the time of death on
the basis of rigor mortis present on the dead bodies.
57. P.W.-5 Mecho Banra is wife of deceased Ram Rai Banra.
She has stated in her evidence that one year three months
before, she was at the house of her deceased father Sonda
Sundi. It was the day of Saturday (i.e.22.02.1997) and at
about 9.00 P.M., in the night, Hajura Sumbrui (since dead)
entered into the house of her father and caught hold the legs
of Gangi Kui (P.W.-9), who was sleeping at the verandah.
Then, Gangi Kui raised halla to which Sonda Sundi, Har Singh
Banra and Ram Rai Banra came there and assaulted Hajura
Sumbrui and told Hajura Sumbrui to go away on which
Hajura Sumb went away from there. She along with her
mother (P.W.-7), her younger sister Shanti Kui (Informant
P.W.-1) had also arrived at the place where Hajura Sumbrui
had caught hold of Gangi Kui.
58. P.W-5 further stated that on the next day (i.e.
23.02.1997) on Sunday at about 3 P.M., many persons from
village Karkatta and Bara Goria, came to the house of her
father and caught Ram Rai Banra, Sonda Sundi and Har
Singh Banra and tied their hands to their back and took them
away to the house of village Munda namely Damu Sundi.
P.W.-5 further stated that the persons, who had come to the
25
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
house and took three persons, out of them, she had identified
Damu Sundi, Lal Singh Sundi, Daso Sundi, Choko Sundi,
Bagun Sundi, Behra Purty, Vijay Sundi, Nara Purty,Roro
Purty, Nauru Sundi, Chachi Sundi fathers name Mangta
Sumbrui, Pradahan Sundi,Nar Singh Sundi,Gango Sundi,
Babu Lal Sundi and Dildar Sundi. P.W.-5 further stated that
she had also identified Anan Sundi, Borjo Sindi, Turam Gope,
Ramesh Sundi Bhagwan Sundi, Chamak Lal Sundi
Bishkishan Sundi,Charai Shah, Manjhi Sumbrui, Turi
Sumbrui, Vijay Sumbrui and Chamak Lal Sumbrui.
59. In her cross-examination, P.W.-5 has stated that she
was residing at the house of her deceased father along with
her husband (Ram Rai Banra) and her children from five years
before the occurrence. She has further stated that her
husband was cultivating the land of her deceased father. She
stated that in the night of occurrence of outraging the modesty
of Gangi Kui by Hajura Sumbrui, she along with her husband
and children were sleeping in a room and her father (deceased
Sonda Sundi) and her mother (P.W.-7) and deceased Har
Singh Banra were sleeping at the verandah of the house.
Gangi Kui (P.W.-9) was also sleeping on that Verandah before
the occurrence of outraging her modesty. In the evening of the
night of occurrence, she along with all family members had
taken night meal and they also had gone to bed. The time
when accused Hajura came at the house of her father, she was
in slumber and she cannot say when accused Hajura had
26
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
come, but he had come at 9 P.M. and she was awaken to
hearing halla and she also got awaken her husband. As soon
as she heard alarm, she along with her husband went out of
the room and came near Gangi Kui and she got awaken her
father, mother and brother-in-law Har Singh Banra and then
they had come near Gangi Kui and by that time Hajura
Sumbrui was there. Hajura Sumbrui was beaten by her father
Sonda Sundi, brother-in-law Har Singh Banra and her
husband Ram Rai Banra. After the assault Hajura Sumbrui
fled away.
60. P.W.-6 Nandi Banra, is daughter of deceased Ram Rai
Banra. She has stated in her evidence that occurrence is of
one year six months ago, it was day of Saturday
(i.e.22.02.1997) at 9.00 P.M., and she was at the house of her
maternal grand-father Sonda Sundi (deceased) at Bara Guira.
She has further stated that at about 9.00 P.M. accused Hajura
Sumbrui came at the house of her maternal grandfather and
caught hold of Gangi Kui (P.W.-9). Har Singh Banara, Ram Rai
Banra and Sonda Sundi (deceased persons) apprehended him
and assaulted him by slaps and let him off.
61. P.W.-6 further stated that on the following day on
Sunday (i.e.23.02.1997) at 3.00 P.M., 34 persons came at the
house of her maternal grandfather (deceased Sonda Sundi)
and they all apprehended Ram Rai Banra, Har Singh Banra
and Sonda Sundi and they tied them and took them away
towards the house of Village Munda Damu Sundi. She
27
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
identified Dubrai Purty, Nara Purty, Roro Purty, Bijay
Sumbrui, Dildar Sundi among the persons who had taken
away the three deceased persons from the house of deceased
Sonda Sundi. She has identified the above persons whose
names have been taken by her in Court.
62. P.W.-7 Nandi Kui, is the wife of deceased Sonda Sundi.
She has stated in her evidence that one year six months
before, on the day of Saturday (i.e.22.02.1997), at about 9:00
P.M., she was sleeping in her house. Accused Hajura Sumbrui
came inside the house and he apprehended Gangi Kui at the
verandah of the house and he began to outrage her modesty
by removing the cloth on her body on which Gangi Kui cried.
Then she along with other family members went near Gangi
Kui and she found that Hajura Sumbrui had caught hold of
Gangi Kui. She further stated that Har Singh Banra, Ram Rai
Banra and Sonda Sundi apprehended Hajura Sumbrui and
assaulted him by fist and slap and they let him off.
63. P.W.-7 further stated that on the following Sunday
(i.e.23.02.1997) at 3.00 P.M., about 20 persons came at her
house and they all caught hold Har Singh Banra, Ram Rai
Banra and Sonda Sundi and they all tied them and took them
away on plea of a false charge of commission of theft and the
persons who took them away out of them, she identified
Damu Sundi, Choko Sundi, Lal Singh Sundi, Bagun alias
Mutu Sundi, Pradhan Sundi, Behra Purty, Nara Purty, Dubraj
28
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
Purty, Roro Purty and Bijay Singh Sumbrui. She also
identified the aforesaid accused persons in dock.
64. In her cross-examination, P.W.-7 stated that she had
told to the police that accused persons, she had not named,
she can identify them by seeing the accused persons. She has
further stated that at the time of arrival of the members of the
mob she along with other family members were sitting in the
house. Mob had taken the aforesaid three persons (deceased)
towards the house of Munda. She stated that the members of
the mob had come to her house and said that they would take
them (the three deceased), since they have committed theft
and as such, they would hold panchayati and they would not
assault them.
65. P.W.-8 Mangal Singh Banra is the son of deceased Har
Singh Banra. He has been tendered for cross-examination. He
has stated nothing about the prosecution case.
66. P.W.-9 Gangi Kui has stated that in the night of
Saturday (i.e.22.02.1997), at about 9.00 P.M., in the night,
she was sleeping at the house of her maternal grand-father
Sonda Suri(deceased) at Village Bara Guira. Then, accused
Hajura Sumbrui entered into the house and he began to
remove cloths of her body while she was sleeping, then, she
cried.Then, Har Singh Banra, Ram Rai Banra and Sonda
Sundi came there and they assaulted Hajura Sumbrui by fist
and slap and then Hajura Sumbrui went away saying that he
would come again since he was assaulted. She has further
29
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
stated that on the following day (i.e. 23.02.1997) first of all 15
persons came and thereafter, 30 persons had come to the
house of her maternal grandfather and all were variously
armed with bow and arrow and lathi. The aforesaid members
of the mob apprehended Har Singh Banra, Ram Rai Banra and
Sonda Sundi and tied their hands keeping on the back of the
body and they all took them away. The Village Munda was
asking the members of the mob to take all the three at his
house for final decision in the matter. She was not knowing
the name of those thirty persons but she had seen their face.
Members of the mob had taken the three persons at the house
of Munda and instead of convening panchayati, all the three
persons were killed.
67. P.W.-9 further stated that Mangal Singh Banra (P.W.-8)
and Nandi Banra (P.W.-6), were sent with water for the three
persons, but they came back to the house at 4 P.M., and
informed that all the three persons were murdered. She,
further stated that permanently she was residing at her own
house and she had come to the house of her maternal
grandfather at Bara Goira on preceding Friday. On being
asked by the defence lawyer, she stated that she had visited
the house on the occasion of Maghe festival. She neither had
seen accused Hazura Sumbrui nor knew his name before the
occurrence. When he was being assaulted, he disclosed his
name Hazura Sumbrui of village Karkata.
30
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
68. P.W.-10 Anirudh Prasad Sharma, is the investigating
officer of the case. He has stated in his evidence that on
24.02.1997, he was posted at Muffasil P.S. Chaibasa as S.I. of
police and at the relevant time Ratan Lal Sinha was the Officer
in-charge of Muffasil Police Station. On 24.02.1997, at 11.00
A.M., when he along with Ratan Lal Sinha was at Muffasil,
Police Station, Shanti Kui (P.W.-1), Mecho Kui (P.W.- 5) and
Nandi Kui (P.W.-7) came at the Muffasil Police Station and
informed that three member of their family were taken from
their house by Village Munda Damu Sundi at his own house
on the plea of doing panchayati but all those three persons
had not come back at the house, till that time. Then, Officer-
in-Charge Ratan Lal Sinha noted the aforesaid information in
Station-Diary vide Entry No. 510 dated 24.02.1997 and asked
him to proceed for village Bara Guira. P.W.-10 further stated
that Officer-in-Charge Ratan Lal Sinha at 4.00 P.M., recorded
the, fardbeyan (Ext.-2) of Shanti Kui at her house in his
presence. After recording the fardbeyan of Shanti Kui, Ratan
Lal Sinha asked him to investigate the case and then he
recorded the further statement of the informant and he
inspected the informant’s house.
69. Investigating officer further stated that he proceeded for
the house of Damu Sundi. He inspected his house which, was
facing north. He found courtyard of Damu Sundi was smeared
with cow dung and there was a Neem tree at a distance of
about 10 yards from the house of Damu Sundi. He recorded
31
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
the statement of Mecho Kui (P.W.-5), Nandi Kui (P.W.-7) and
Gangi Kui (P.W.-9). He learnt from Ratan Lal Sinha that he got
arrested Anjura Sumbrui (Hajura Sumbrui) in an injured
condition in Village Karkata and he had got him admitted at
Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa. He raided the house of the accused
persons but found them absconding.
70. Investigating officer further stated that on 25.02.1997,
at 9.45 Hrs, he arrested Damu Sundi, Bhagwan Sundi,
Chamak Lal Sundi, Bishkishan, Lal Singh Sundi, all residents
of Village Bara Guira and also Chara Hessa, Majhi Sumbrui,
both residents of Village Karketa from the field area which was
situated in west of the inhabitant area of Village Bara Guira.
71. Investigating officer further stated that confessional
statement (Ext.-3) of Damu Sundi was recorded by A.S.I.
B.K.Choudhury at Muffasil Police Station. He has further
stated that he recorded the statements of Daso Sundi,
Bhagwan Sundi, Chamak Lal Sundi, who had disclosed before
him that the aforesaid accused persons with co-accused after
committing the murder of Har Singh Banra, Ram Raà Banra
and Sonda Sundi got concealed their dead bodies at Runku
Ekkir nala of river Roro. On 25.02.1997 at 11.45 A.M., he
along with Officer-in-Charge Ratan Lal Sinha and the other
police officials had taken Damu Sundi, Daso Sundi, Bhagwan
Sundi, Chamak Lal Sundi, Lal Singh Sundi, Bishkishan
Sundi, Chara Heassa and Majhi Sumbrui at Runku Ekir Ghat
at the bank of river Roro in Village Chhota Khunta. They had
32
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
also taken with them divers Paltu Karwa (P.W.-2) and Tulsi
Karwa (P.W.-3) and the informant Shanti, informant’s mother
(P.W.-7) and sister (P.W.- 5) had also accompanied them. On
being pointed out and being disclosed by the aforesaid
accused persons, the divers took out the dead bodies of the
aforesaid three deceased from Roro River at Runku Ekir Ghat.
The waist of the dead body of Sonda Sundi and Har Singh
Banra were tied with string and the left wrist of Ram Rai
Banra was found tied with cord of Coconut threads. He
inspected Runku Ekir Ghat and found blood spots on the
ground at the place from where the aforesaid accused persons
had thrown the dead bodies. He seized blood stained earth
from the bank of Roro River in presence of Tulsi Karwa and
Paltu Karwa and prepared the seizure list (Ext.-4). He had
seized the aforesaid dead bodies in presence of Tulsi Karwa
and Paltu Karwa and prepared the Seizure list Ext.-4/1, in
their presence.
72. Investigating officer further stated that he inspected the
three dead bodies in presence of witnesses Ganesh Kachhap
and Paltu Karwa (P.W.-2) and prepared the inquest reports
(Exts. 5 to 5/2) of three dead bodies in their presence. He sent
the dead bodies for post-mortem to Chaibasa. Investigating
officer further stated that Officer-in-Charge, Ratan Lal Sinha
had drawn up formal F.I.R. (Ext.-6).
33
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
73. The statement of the accused persons/appellants was
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they had denied
the allegation alleged against them.
74. After due appreciations of evidences, the learned Trial
Court had found the charges proved beyond reasonable doubt
against the appellants and accordingly the appellants were
inter alia convicted under Sections 364/149, 302/149 and
201 of I.P.C. against which the instant appeal has been
preferred.
75. This Court, on the basis of the aforesaid factual aspect
vis-Ã -vis argument advanced on behalf of parties, is now
proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence by
formulating following questions to be answered by this Court:
(I) Whether on the basis of the testimony of the
witnesses can it be said to be a case based on
circumstantial evidence or if it based upon the
circumstantial evidence the chain is being
completed or not?
(II) Whether the material, as has come in course of
trial, is sufficient to attract the ingredients of
offence committed under Sections 364/149,
302/149 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code?
76. Ongoing through the evidences of the prosecution
witnesses, this court finds that in the present case three
persons namely Har Singh Banra, Ram Raà Banra and Sonda
Sundi were killed by the appellants/accused persons by
forming unlawful assembly.
34
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
77. Further, out of the 10 witnesses examined by the
prosecution, 6 witnesses are related to each other and also
related to the three deceased persons. P.W.-1 Shanti Kui and
P.W.-5 Mecho Banra are sisters and their husband namely
Har Singh Banra and Ram Raà Banra, respectively were
alleged to be killed by appellants/accused persons by forming
unlawful assembly. In the alleged occurrence the
appellant/accused persons had also killed Sonda Sundi, who
was father of both these sisters Shanti Kui and Mecho Banra.
P.W.-7 Nandi Kui, is the wife of the deceased Sonda Sundi.
P.W.-6 Nandi Banra is daughter of deceased Ram Rai Banra,
P.W.-8 Mangal Singh Banra is the son of the deceased Har
Singh Banra and P.W.-9 Gangi Kui, is the grand daughter of
the deceased Sonda Sundi.
78. This court finds that Sonda Sundi(deceased) was head
of his family and he was resident of village Bara Guira. On the
occasion of Maghe festival, Sonda’s daughter Shanti Kui (P.W.-
1) along with her husband Har Singh Banra (deceased) and
children had come to her father’s house at village Bara Guira.
The other daughter of the Sonda Sundi(deceased), namely
Mecho Banra (P.W.-5) was residing along with her husband
Ram Rai Banra(deceased) and children at her father’s house
itself in the village Bara Guira, where her husband Ram Rai
Banra(deceased) used to cultivate land of his father-in- law
Sonda Sundi(deceased).
35
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
79. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, this
court finds that on Saturday night on 22.02.1997, at about
9.00 P.M., accused Hajura Sumbrui (since dead) of village
Karkata had entered the house of Sonda Sundi(deceased) and
caught hold of Gangi Kui (P.W.-9), who was sleeping at
verandah to which Gangi Kui raised alarm. Then, Har Singh
Banra, Sonda Sundi and Ram Rai Banra apprehended
accused Hajura Sumbrui and assaulted him with fist and slap
and let him go.
80. It has further been alleged that thereafter, on the next
day i.e. on Sunday (23.02.1997), mob including the aforesaid
appellants came to the house of Sonda Sundi and abducted
Har Singh Banra, Sonda Sundi and Ram Rai Banra and took
them to the house of Village Munda (Village headman).
Thereafter, on disclosure made in the confessional statement
of Damu Sundi (Village headman), the dead bodies of Har
Singh Banra, Sonda Sundi and Ram Rai Banra were recovered
on 24.02.1997, from the Runku Ekir Nala of river Roro.
Re: Issue No.1
81. Now, this court is proceeding to examine the first issue
i.e. whether on the basis of the testimony of the witnesses can
it be said to be a case based on circumstantial evidence or if it
based upon the circumstantial evidence the chain is being
completed or not?
36
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
82. This Court, after referring the impugned judgment and
adverting to the testimony as recorded in course of the trial of
the witnesses produced on behalf of the prosecution has found
that none of the witnesses in their examination-in-chief or in
cross-examination have deposed that they had seen alleged
commission of crime particularly in terms of manner of
assault resulting in the death of the three deceased namely
Har Singh Banra, Ram Raà Banra and Sonda Sundi and the
circumstances in which the dead body of all the three
deceased persons were found from Runku Ekir Nala of river
Roro, which were tied with stone boulder.
83. Further this Court finds from the impugned judgment
that learned trial court, inter alia, had convicted the
appellants observing that prosecution has established that the
30 accused persons had formed unlawful assembly and the
members of the mob were armed with bow and arrow and
danda and had abducted the three persons Har Singh Banra,
Sonda Sundi and Ram Rai Banra (deceased persons) from the
house on plea of holding panchayati at the house of village
Munda(village headman) Damu Sundi and killed them.
Hence, the 30 accused persons inter alia were convicted by the
learned trial Court under sections 364/149 and 302/149 of
IPC and under section 201 of IPC. The accused Hajura
Sumbrui (since dead) was also convicted under section 354 of
IPC.
37
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
84. In the evidence laid before the trial Court, it has come
that P.W.-1 Shanti Kui(informant), P.W.-5 Mecho Banra, P.W.-
6 Nandi Banra, P.W.-7 Nandi Kui and P.W.-9 Gangi Kui, were
present and had witnessed the first part of occurrence , when
the three persons namely Har Singh Banra, Sonda Sundi and
Ram Rai Banra, were abducted by the mob on Sunday on
23.02.1997 at about 3 P.M., from the house Sonda
Sundi(deceased).
85. Later on, dead bodies of Har Singh Banra, Sonda Sundi
and Ram Rai Banra, were recovered from Runku Ekir Nala of
river Roro on 25.02.1997, on the disclosure made in the
confessional statement (Ext.-3) of accused/ appellant Damu
Sundi (village headman).
86. Therefore, this Court is now adverting to analyse and
appreciate the circumstances whether on the basis of the
circumstantial evidence, the culpability of the surviving
appellants can be proved or not. Hence, this Court think it
apposite to refer to certain authorities pertaining to
delineation of cases that hinge on circumstantial evidence.
87. There is no quarrel with the settled position of law that
in the case of circumstantial evidence, the chain should be
complete then only there will be conviction of the concerned
accused person, as has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Hanumant son of Govind Nargundlar
vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343 wherein it
has been held that “It is well to remember that in cases where
38
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances
from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the
first instance be fully established, and all the facts so
established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of
the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of
a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as
to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved.
In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far
complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a
conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it
must be such as to show that within all human probability the
act must have been done by the accused.”
88. The same view has been taken by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Bakhshish Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1971) 3
SCC 182 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that
the principle in a case resting on circumstantial evidence is
well settled that the circumstances put forward must be
satisfactorily proved and those circumstances should be
consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
These circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency and they should be such as to exclude every
hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words,
there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to
leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with
the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show
39
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
that within all human probability the act must have been done
by the accused.
89. The Hon’ble Apex Court while laying down such
proposition in the said case has considered the factual aspect
revolving around therein and while considering the fact has
only found the incriminating evidence against the appellant
was his pointing the place where the dead body of the
deceased had been thrown which the Hon’ble Apex Court has
not considered to be circumstantial evidence though
undoubtedly it raises a strong suspicion against the appellant.
The Hon’ble Apex Court while coming to such conclusion has
observed that even if he was not a party to the murder, the
appellant could have come to know the place where the dead
body of the deceased had been thrown. Hence anyone who saw
those parts could have inferred that the dead body must have
been thrown into the river near about that place. In that
pretext, the law has been laid down at paragraph-9 thereof,
which reads as under:
“9. The law relating to circumstantial evidence has been
stated by this Court in numerous decisions. It is needless
to refer to them as the law on the point is well-settled. In
a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the
circumstances put forward must be satisfactorily proved
and those circumstances should be consistent only with
the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, those
circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency and they should be such as to exclude every
hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other
words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete
as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion40
2026:JHHC:10238-DBconsistent with the innocence of the accused and it must
be such as to show that within all human probability the
act must have been done by the accused.”
90. It is, thus, evident from the close analysis of the
aforesaid judgments, the following conditions must be fulfilled
before a case against an accused can be said to be fully
established:
(i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is
to be drawn should be fully established.
(ii) the facts so established should be consistent only with
the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say,
they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis
except that the accused is guilty,
(iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature
and tendency,
(iv) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except
the one to be proved, and
(v) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not
to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused and must
show that in all human probability the act must have
been done by the accused.
91. The Hon’ble Apex Court has reiterated the said principle
again in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of
Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 holding all the above five
principles to be the golden principles which constitute the
panch-sheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial
evidence. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the said case as under
41
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
paragraph-155, 156, 157, 158 and 159 has been pleased to
hold that if these conditions are fulfilled only then a Court can
use a false explanation or a false defence as an additional link
to lend an assurance to the court and not otherwise.
Paragraphs-155, 156, 157, 158 and 159 of the said
judgment read as under:
“155. It may be interesting to note that as regards the
mode of proof in a criminal case depending on
circumstantial evidence, in the absence of a corpus
delicti, the statement of law as to proof of the same
was laid down by Gresson, J. (and concurred by 3 more
Judges) in King v. Horry [1952 NZLR 111] thus: “Before
he can be convicted, the fact of death should be proved
by such circumstances as render the commission of the
crime morally certain and leave no ground for reasonable
doubt: the circumstantial evidence should be so cogent
and compelling as to convince a jury that upon no
rational hypothesis other than murder can the facts be
accounted for.”
156. Lord Goddard slightly modified the expression
“morally certain” by “such circumstances as render the
commission of the crime certain”.
157. This indicates the cardinal principle of criminal
jurisprudence that a case can be said to be proved only
when there is certain and explicit evidence and no person
can be convicted on pure moral conviction. Horry case
[1952 NZLR 111] was approved by this Court in Anant
Chintaman Lagu v. State of Bombay [AIR 1960 SC 500]
Lagu case [AIR 1960 SC 500] as also the principles
enunciated by this Court in Hanumant case [(1952) 2
SCC 71] have been uniformly and consistently followed
in all later decisions of this Court without any single
exception. To quote a few cases — Tufail case [(1969) 3
SCC 198] , Ramgopal case [(1972) 4 SCC 625] ,
Chandrakant Nyalchand Seth v. State of Bombay [
42
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
Criminal Appeal No 120 of 1957,], Dharambir Singh v.
State of Punjab [ Criminal Appeal No 98 of 1958,]. There
are a number of other cases where although Hanumant
case [(1952) 2 SCC] has not been expressly noticed but
the same principles have been expounded and reiterated,
as in Naseem Ahmed v. Delhi Administration [(1974) 3
SCC 668, 670] , Mohan Lal Pangasa v. State of
U.P. [(1974) 4 SCC 607,] , Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit v.
State of Maharashtra [(1981) 2 SCC 35, 39] and M.G.
Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1963 SC 200 :
(1963) 2 SCR 405,] — a five-Judge Bench decision.
158. It may be necessary here to notice a very forceful
argument submitted by the Additional Solicitor General
relying on a decision of this Court in Deonandan Mishra
v. State of Bihar [AIR 1955 SC 801] to supplement his
argument that if the defence case is false it would
constitute an additional link so as to fortify the
prosecution case. With due respect to the learned
Additional Solicitor-General we are unable to agree with
the interpretation given by him of the aforesaid case, the
relevant portion of which may be extracted thus: “But in a
case like this where the various links as stated above
have been satisfactorily made out and the circumstances
point to the appellant as the probable assailant, with
reasonable definiteness and in proximity to the deceased
as regards time and situation. such absence of
explanation or false explanation would itself be an
additional link which completes the chain.”
159. It will be seen that this Court while taking into
account the absence of explanation or a false explanation
did hold that it will amount to be an additional link to
complete the chain but these observations must be read
in the light of what this Court said earlier viz. before a
false explanation can be used as additional link, the
following essential conditions must be satisfied: (1)
various links in the chain of evidence led by the
prosecution have been satisfactorily proved, (2) the said
circumstance points to the guilt of the accused with
43
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
reasonable definiteness, and (3) the circumstance is in
proximity to the time and situation.”
92. The foremost requirement in the case of circumstantial
evidence is that the chain is to be completed. In Padala Veera
Reddy v. State of A.P. [1989 Supp (2) SCC 706 the Hon’ble
Apex Court held that when a case rests upon circumstantial
evidence, the following tests must be satisfied:
“10. … (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is
sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency
unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the
circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so
complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that
within all human probability the crime was committed by the
accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in
order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of
explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of
the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent
with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with
his innocence.”
93. In Ram Singh v. Sonia (2007) 3 SCC 1, while referring
to the settled proof pertaining to circumstantial evidence, the
Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the principles about the caution
to be kept in mind by court. It has been stated therein as
follows:
“39. … in a case depending largely upon circumstantial
evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or
suspicion may take the place of legal proof. The court
must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the
chain of events have been established clearly and such
completed chain of events must be such as to rule out a
reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. It44
2026:JHHC:10238-DBhas also been indicated that when the important link
goes, the chain of circumstances gets snapped and the
other circumstances cannot in any manner, establish the
guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.”
94. Thus, it is evident that for proving the charge on the
basis of circumstantial evidence, it would be necessary that
evidence so available must induce a reasonable man to come
to a definite conclusion of proving of guilt; meaning thereby
there must be a chain of evidence so far it is complete as not
to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent
with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to
show that within all human probability the act must have
been done by the accused.
95. In the backdrop the aforesaid settled position of law this
Court is now reverting to the factual aspects of the present
case.
96. This court finds that in the present case there are two
places of occurrence. The first place of occurrence is the house
of informant’s father Sonda Sundi(deceased), which is situated
at village Bara-Guira wherein family members had assembled
on the occasion of Maghe festival. In this house, two incidents
had occurred one after another, firstly, when accused Hajura
Sumbrui (since dead) had entered into the house on Saturday
night at about 9 P.M., on 22.02.1997, and had tried to outrage
the modesty of Ganga Kui (P.W.-9) due to which Har Singh
Banra, Ram Raà Banra and Sonda Sundi (deceased persons)
45
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
had assaulted the accused Hajura Sumbrui, with fist and
slap. Secondly, on the next day on Sunday on 23.02.1997,
mob including present appellants variously armed with
weapon came to the house of Soma Sundi(deceased) and
abducted all three persons Har Singh Banra, Ram Raà Banra
and Sonda Sundi.
97. The second place of occurrence is Runku Ekir Nala of
river Roro from where dead bodies of all the three deceased
Har Singh Banra, Ram Raà Banra and Sonda Sundi were
recovered on 25.02.1997, and each were tied with stone
bolder.
98. Now this court is proceeding to examine whether the
chain of evidences is complete or not from which the
conclusion of guilt or innocence of the appellants herein can
be found out.
99. Coming to the first place of occurrence i.e. the house of
informant’s father Sonda Sundi(seceased) situated at Village
Bara Guira.
100. Informant Shanti Kui (P.W.-1) in her fardbeyan as well
as in her evidence has stated that on Saturday night
(22.02.997), at about 9 P.M., accused Hajura Sumbrui of
village Karkata had entered the house of her father Sonda
Sundi(deceased) and tried to outrage the modesty of Gangi Kui
(P.W.-9), who was sleeping at the varandah and on cry of
Gangi Kui, she and other family members of the house
reached to Gangi Kui. On going there, they found Hajura
46
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
Sundi (since dead) catching hold of Gangi Kui. Then, Sonda
Sundi, Har Singh Sundi and Ram Rai Sundi (deceased
persons) had beaten Hajura Sumbrui with fist and slap and
drove him out.
101. Informant further in her evidence had stated that one
day after the aforesaid occurrence (the incidence of outraging
the modesty of Gangai Kui), i.e. on 23.02.1997 at about 3:00
P.M., mob variously armed with bow and arrow, lathi and
spear came to the house of her deceased father and members
of the mob abducted Sonda Sundi, Ram Rai Banra and Har
Singh Banra and took all the three persons to the house of
Damu Sundi who was village Munda (the headman of the
village).
102. Hence, this court finds from the evidence of the
informant Shanti Kui that apart from Sonda Sundi, Ram Rai
Banra and Har Singh Banra (deceased persons), P.W.-5 Mecho
Banra (wife of deceased Ram Rai Banra), P.W.-6 Nandi Banra
(daughter of deceased Ram Rai Banra) and P.W.-7 Nandi
Kui(wife of deceased Sonda Sundi) had also arrived at the
varandah, on hearing cry of Gangai Kui (P.W.-9)
103. Then, ongoing through the evidence of P.W.-5 Mecho
Banra, P.W.-6 Nandi Banra and P.W.-7 Nandi Kui, this court
finds that P.W.-5, P.W.-6 and P.W.-7 have also stated in their
evidence that on Saturday night ( i.e.22.09.1997) at about 9
P.M., on hearing cry of Gangi Kui(P.W.-9), they had rushed to
Gangi Kui and found accused Hajura Sumbrui there, who had
47
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
tried to outrage the modesty of Gangi Kui. Then, Sonda
Sundi, Har Singh Sundi and Ram Rai Sundi (deceased
persons) had beaten Hajura Sumbrui with fist and slap and
had drove out Hajura Sumbrui.
104. Further, ongoing through the evidence of Gangi Kui
(P.W.-9), this court finds that Gangi Kui had stated in her
evidence that in the night of Saturday, at about 9.00 P.M., she
was sleeping at the house of her maternal grandfather Sonda
Suri(deceased) at Village Bara Guira. Then, accused Hajura
Sumbrui had entered into the house and he began to remove
her clothes while she was sleeping. She cried to which Har
Singh Banra, Ram Rai Banra and Sonda Sundi (deceased
persons) came there and they had beaten Hajura Sumbrui by
slaps and then Hajura Sumbrui went away saying that he
would come again since he was assaulted.
105. Further, this court finds from the evidence of P.W.-5,
P.W.-6,P.W.-7 and P.W.-9 that after the incident of trying to
outrage the modesty of Gangi Kui (P.W.-9) by Hajura Sumbrui,
in the Saturday night at about 9 P.M. on 22.02.1997, on the
next day i.e. on Sunday on 23.02.1997 at about 3.P.M., mob
variously armed with weapon came to the house of Sonda
Sundi(deceased person) and abducted Har Singh Banra, Ram
Rai Banra and Sonda Sundi(deceased persons) and these
abducted persons were taken to the house of Damu Sundi
(the headman of the village).
48
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
106. Hence, this court finds that at the first place of
occurrence i.e. at the house of the Sonda Sundi (deceased
person), P.W.-1, P.W.-5, P.W.-6, P.W.-7 and P.W.-9 were
present and had witnessed both the incidents i.e. accused
Hajura Sumbrui being beaten by Har Singh Banra, Ram Rai
Banra and Sonda Sundi (deceased persons) in the night of
22.02.1997 at about 9 P.M., and thereafter, on the next day
i.e. on Sunday on 23.02.1997, at about 3 P.M., the mob
coming to the house Sonda Sundi (deceased person) and
abducting Har Singh Banra, Ram Rai Banra and Sonda Sundi.
107. Now, coming to the second place of occurrence i.e. the
Runku Ekir Nala of river Roro from where dead body of all
three deceased Har Singh Banra, Ram Raà Banra and Sonda
Sundi were recovered on 24.02.1997, which were tied with
stone bolder.
108. From the evidence, this court finds that after abducting
the aforesaid three persons Har Singh Banra, Ram Rai Banra
and Sonda Sundi, their bodies were recovered on 25.02.1997,
on the disclosure made in the confessional statement (Ext.-3)
of accused /appellant Damu Sundi from Runku Ekir Nala of
river Roro, and the bodies were tied with stone boulder.
109. Then, ongoing through the evidence of Paltu Karwa
(P.W.-2) and Tulsi Karwa (P.W.-3), this court finds that both
these witnesses are divers and both have stated in their
evidence that on being asked by the police, they had dived into
49
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
the river water had taken out the three dead bodies which
were tied with stone boulder.
110. Further, on going through the inquest report Ext.-5 of
the deceased Har Singh Banra and inquest report Ext.-5/2 of
Sonda Sundi, this court finds from their inquest report that
string was tied in their waste and in the inquest report Ext.-
5/1 of deceased Ram Rai Banra, it is mentioned that his wrist
of his hand was tied with string.
111. Further, Doctor P.W.-4, who had conducted the post-
mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased
persons Har Singh Banra, Ram Rai Banra and Sonda Sundi,
the doctor had found lacerated wound and crush on the chest
and face of the deceased persons. Doctor had opined that time
elapsed since death was within 72 hours from the time of
post-mortem examination and death was due to injuries
leading to hemorrhage and shock.
112. Hence, this court finds that from the second place of
occurrence i.e. from Runku Ekir Nala of river Roro dead body
of all three deceased Har Singh Banra, Ram Raà Banra and
Sonda Sundi were recovered on 25.02.1997, which were tied
with stone bolder and the recovery of the bodies were made on
the disclosure made in the confessional statement (Ext.-3) of
the accused/appellant Damu Sundi.
113. So, from the above discussion this court is of view that
prosecution has been able to prove that P.W.-1, P.W.-5, P.W.-
6, P.W.-7 and P.W.-9 were present at about 3 P.M. on
50
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
23.02.1997, at the house of Sonda Sundi(deceased) i,e. at the
first place of occurrence and had witnessed the incidence of
abducting of Har Singh Banra, Ram Rai Banra and Sonda
Sundi(deceased persons) by the mob.
114. Further, the prosecution has also proved the recovery of
three dead bodies of Har Singh Banra, Ram Rai Banra and
Sonda Sundi from Runku Ekir Nala of river Roro, on
25.02.1997 i.e. from the second place of occurrence and the
bodies were recovered on the disclosure made in the
confessional statement (Ext.-3) of accused/appellant Damu
Sundi.
115. Hence, this court is of the considered view that
prosecution has by cogent evidence has been able to establish
the chain of circumstances, which proves the homicidal death
of the three persons Har Singh Banra, Ram Rai Banra and
Sonda Sundi by the accused persons/appellants.
116. Accordingly, Issue No.1 has been answered.
Re : Issue No.2
117. Regarding the second issue i.e. whether the material, as
has come in course of trial, is sufficient to attract the
ingredients of offence committed under Sections
364/149,302/149 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code?
118. Learned amicus curiae for the appellants has argued
that it is not a case of common object and there is complete
absence of evidence in the regard that accused/appellants
51
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
having shares common object of unlawful assembly, as such,
criminal liability against the appellants under Section 149 of
the Indian Penal Code cannot be made out.
119. In the aforesaid context, it is necessary, therefore, to
examine the provisions of Section 149 of the Indian Penal
Code. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code is to be found in
Chapter VIII of that Code which reads as under:-
“If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful
assembly in prosecution of the common object of that
assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew
to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object,
every person who, at the time of the committing of that
offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of
that offence.”
120. Further, a plain reading of the above would show that
the provision is in two parts. The first part deals with cases in
which an offence is committed by any member of the assembly
“in prosecution of the common object” of that assembly. The
second part deals with cases where the commission of a given
offence is not by itself the common object of the unlawful
assembly but members of such assembly “knew that the same
is likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object
of the assembly”.
121. The Hon’ble Apex Court has exclusively dealt with
application of ingredients of Section 149 in the case
of Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala, (2011) 9 SCC 257
and has observed at Paragraph Nos.17 to 27 as under:-
52
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
“17. Section 149 IPC has essentially two ingredients viz. (i)
offence committed by any member of an unlawful assembly
consisting of five or more members, and (ii) such offence must be
committed in prosecution of the common object (under Section
141 IPC) of the assembly or members of that assembly knew to
be likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object.
18. For “common object”, it is not necessary that there should be
a prior concert in the sense of a meeting of the members of the
unlawful assembly, the common object may form on the spur of
the moment; it is enough if it is adopted by all the members and
is shared by all of them.
19. In order that the case may fall under the first part, the
offence committed must be connected immediately with the
common object of the unlawful assembly of which the accused
were members. (Vide Bhanwar Singh v. State of M.P.) Even if
the offence committed is not in direct prosecution of the common
object of the assembly, it may yet fall under the second part
of Section 149 IPC if it can be held that the offence was such as
the members knew was likely to be committed. The expression
“know” does not mean a mere possibility, such as might or
might not happen. For instance, it is a matter of common
knowledge that if a body of persons go armed to take forcible
possession of the land, it would be right to say that someone is
likely to be killed and all the members of the unlawful assembly
must be aware of that likelihood and would be guilty under the
second part of Section 149 IPC. There may be cases which
would come within the second part, but not within the first. The
distinction between the two parts of Section 149 IPC cannot be
ignored or obliterated.
20. However, once it is established that the unlawful assembly
had common object, it is not necessary that all persons forming
the unlawful assembly must be shown to have committed some
overt act. For the purpose of incurring the vicarious liability
under the provision, the liability of other members of the
unlawful assembly for the offence committed during the
continuance of the occurrence, rests upon the fact whether the
other members knew beforehand that the offence actually
committed was likely to be committed in prosecution of the
common object.
21. The crucial question for determination in such a case is
whether the assembly consisted of five or more persons and
whether the said persons entertained one or more of the53
2026:JHHC:10238-DBcommon objects specified by Section 141. While determining this
question, it becomes relevant to consider whether the assembly
consisted of some persons who were merely passive witnesses
and had joined the assembly as a matter of idle curiosity
without intending to entertain the common object of the
assembly.
22. In K.M. Ravi v. State of Karnataka this Court observed that
mere presence or association with other members alone does
not per se become sufficient to hold every one of them criminally
liable for the offences committed by the others unless there is
sufficient evidence on record to show that each intended to or
knew the likelihood of commission of such an offending act.
23. Similarly, in State of U.P. v. Kishanpal this Court held that
once a membership of an unlawful assembly is established it is
not incumbent on the prosecution to establish whether any
specific overt act has been assigned to any accused. Mere
membership of the unlawful assembly is sufficient and every
member of an unlawful assembly is vicariously liable for the
acts done by others either in prosecution of the common object
or such as the members of the assembly knew were likely to be
committed.
24. In Amerika Rai v. State of Bihar this Court opined that for a
member of an unlawful assembly having common object what is
liable to be seen is as to whether there was any active
participation and the presence of all the accused persons was
with an active mind in furtherance of their common object. The
law of vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC is crystal clear
that even the mere presence in the unlawful assembly, but with
an active mind, to achieve the common object makes such a
person vicariously liable for the acts of the unlawful assembly.
25. Regarding the application of Section 149, the following
observations from Charan Singh v. State of U.P. are very
relevant: (SCC pp. 209-10, para 13) “13. … The crucial question
to determine is whether the assembly consisted of five or more
persons and whether the said persons entertained one or more
of the common objects, as specified in Section 141. … The word
‘object’ means the purpose or design and, in order to make it
‘common’, it must be shared by all. In other words, the object
should be common to the persons, who compose the assembly,
that is to say, they should all be aware of it and concur in it. A
common object may be formed by express agreement after
mutual consultation, but that is by no means necessary. It may54
2026:JHHC:10238-DBbe formed at any stage by all or a few members of the assembly
and the other members may just join and adopt it. Once formed,
it need not continue to be the same. It may be modified or
altered or abandoned at any stage. The expression ‘in
prosecution of common object’ as appearing in Section 149 has
to be strictly construed as equivalent to ‘in order to attain the
common object’. It must be immediately connected with the
common object by virtue of the nature of the object. There must
be community of object and the object may exist only up to a
particular stage, and not thereafter.”
26. In Bhanwar Singh v. State of M.P. this Court held: (SCC p.
674, para 44) “44. Hence, the common object of the unlawful
assembly in question depends firstly on whether such object
can be classified as one of those described in Section
141 IPC. Secondly, such common object need not be the product
of prior concert but, as per established law, may form on the
spur of the moment (see also Sukha v. State of Rajasthan).
Finally, the nature of this common object is a question of fact to
be determined by considering nature of arms, nature of the
assembly, behaviour of the members, etc.
27. Thus, this Court has been very cautious in a catena of
judgments that where general allegations are made against a
large number of persons the court would categorically scrutinise
the evidence and hesitate to convict the large number of persons
if the evidence available on record is vague. It is obligatory on
the part of the court to examine that if the offence committed is
not in direct prosecution of the common object, it yet may fall
under the second part of Section 149 IPC, if the offence was
such as the members knew was likely to be committed. Further
inference has to be drawn as to what was the number of
persons; how many of them were merely passive witnesses;
what were their arms and weapons. The number and nature of
injuries is also relevant to be considered. “Common object” may
also be developed at the time of incident.
122. Further, in the case of Subal Ghorai Vs. State of
W.B., (2013) 4 SCC 607, the Hon’ble Supreme Court at
Paragraph Nos. 42 to 47 and 50 to 53 has observed as under:-
“42. We must now deal with the submission that all the accused
cannot be convicted for murder with the aid of Section 149 IPC
because the prosecution story that all the accused were armed55
2026:JHHC:10238-DBwith weapons and they attacked the deceased is based on
omnibus statements of the eyewitnesses. In order to deal with
this submission, we have reproduced the material portions of
the evidence of the eyewitnesses. It is now necessary to refer to
the judgments of this Court which have been relied upon by the
counsel on this point so that the evidence of the witnesses can
be examined in their light.
43. In Lalji this Court observed that Section 149 IPC makes
every person who is the member of an unlawful assembly at the
time of committing of the offence guilty of that offence. It creates
a constructive or vicarious liability of the members of the
unlawful assembly for the unlawful acts committed pursuant to
the common object by any other member of this assembly.
However, the vicarious liability of the members of the unlawful
assembly extends only to the acts done in pursuance of the
common object of the unlawful assembly, or to such offences as
the members of the unlawful assembly knew to be likely to be
committed in prosecution of that object. Once the case of a
person falls within the ingredients of the section, the question
that he did nothing with his own hands, would be immaterial,
because everyone must be taken to have intended the probable
and natural results of the combination of the acts in which he
joined and it is not necessary that all the persons forming an
unlawful assembly must do some overt act.
44. It was further observed in Lalji case that: (SCC p. 442, para
10) “10. … once the court holds that certain accused persons
formed an unlawful assembly and an offence is committed by
any member of that assembly in prosecution of the common
object of that assembly, or such as the members of the
assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of
that object, every person who at the time of committing of that
offence was a member of the same assembly is to be held guilty
of that offence.”
This Court further observed that: (Lalji case, SCC p. 442, para
10) “10. … After such a finding it would not be open to the court
to see as to who actually did the offensive act or require the
prosecution to prove which of the members did which of the
offensive acts. The prosecution would have no obligation to
prove it.”
45. On the facts of the case before it, this Court held that after
having held that: (Lalji case, SCC p. 442, para 11) “11. … the
56
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
appellants formed an unlawful assembly carrying dangerous
weapons with the common object of resorting to violence … it
was not open to the High Court to acquit some of the members
on the ground that they themselves did not perform any violent
act, or that there was no corroboration of their participation. In
other words, having held that they formed an unlawful
assembly and committed an offence punishable with the aid
of Section 149 IPC, the High Court erred in examining which of
the members only did actively participate and in acquitting
those who, according to the court, did not so participate. Doing
so would amount to forgetting the very nature and essence of
the offence created by Section 149 IPC.”
46. In Sherey 25 appellants were tried for offences punishable
under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307, 323 and 325 all read
with Section 149 IPC in respect of an incident of rioting. The
rioting occurred because of the dispute over a grove between
Hindus and Muslims. Twenty-five Muslims attacked Hindus.
Three Hindus died. Six eyewitnesses deposed about the
incident. PW 1 complainant gave a detailed version and
attributed overt acts to nine accused. In deposition, he named
five more persons who also attacked the deceased. Regarding
the others, he mentioned in an omnibus way that they were
armed with lathis. He did not attribute any overt act to any one
of them. This Court observed that in the circumstances, it was
difficult to accept the prosecution case that the other appellants
were members of the unlawful assembly with the object of
committing the offences with which they were charged. This
Court expressed that it was highly unsafe to apply Section
149 IPC and make everyone of them constructively liable. This
Court further observed that when there is a general allegation
against a large number of persons the Court naturally hesitates
to convict all of them on such vague evidence. Some reasonable
circumstance must be found out to lend assurance. It was
further observed that from that point of view it was safe only to
convict the nine accused whose presence was not only
consistently mentioned from the stage of FIR but also to whom
overt acts were attributed. This Court concluded that the fact
that they were armed with weapons and attacked the victims
shows that they were members of an unlawful assembly with
the common object of committing murder and other offences with
which they were charged.
47. In Thakkidiram Reddy the case of the prosecution was that
the 21 accused in the dead of night formed themselves into an
57
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
unlawful assembly armed with weapons and went to the house
of the deceased. They attacked the inmates of the house of one
Gankidi Reddy in which Gankidi Reddy lost his life. The
accused, thereafter, left the place. The trial court acquitted 10 of
them and convicted A-1 to A-11, inter alia, under Section
148 and Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. In the appeal,
the High Court set aside the convictions of A-2 to A-11
under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC and
maintained all other convictions. The State carried an appeal to
this Court. This Court referred to its previous judgments in
Masalti v. State of U.P. and Lalji and observed (Thakkidiram
Reddy case, SCC p. 562, para 17) that from these judgments, “it
is evident that to ascertain whether a particular person shared
the common object of the unlawful assembly, it is not essential
to prove that he committed some illegal overt act or had been
guilty of some illegal omission in pursuance of the common
object. Once it is demonstrated from all the facts and
circumstances of a given case that he shared the common object
of the unlawful assembly in furtherance of which some offence
was committed–or he knew was likely to be committed–by any
other person, he would be guilty of that offence”.
This Court further observed that undoubtedly, commission of an
overt act by such a person would be one of the tests to prove
that he shared the common object, but it is not the sole test. This
Court rejected the submission that some of the accused had
caused simple injuries and, hence, they did not share common
object to murder and observed that the manner in which the
incident took place clearly proved that even if this Court were to
assume that those accused did not share the common object of
committing the murder, they, being members of the unlawful
assembly certainly knew that the murder was likely to be
committed by A-1 in prosecution of the common object so as to
make them liable under Section 302 read with the second part
of Section 149 IPC. In the circumstances, order of acquittal of A-
2 to A-5 and A-9 of the charges under Sections
148 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC recorded by the High
Court was set aside and the order of the trial court convicting
them for the said offences was restored.
50. In Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre, after adverting to
relevant judgments, this Court observed: (SCC p. 797, para 72)
“72. … that for determination of common object of the unlawful
assembly, the conduct of each of the members of the unlawful
assembly, before and at the time of attack is of relevant
58
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
consideration. At a particular stage of the incident, what is the
object of the unlawful assembly is a question of fact and that
has to be determined keeping in view the nature of the
assembly, the arms carried by the members and the behaviour
of the members at or near the scene of the incident.”
51. In Waman this Court held that: (SCC p. 307, para 40) “40. …
whenever the court convicts any person or persons of any
offence with the aid of Section 149 IPC, a clear finding regarding
the common object of the assembly must be given and the
evidence disclosed must show not only the nature of the
common object but also that the object was unlawful. In order to
attract Section 149 IPC it must be shown that the incriminating
act was done to accomplish the common object of unlawful
assembly.”
In that case, there was no recovery of weapon from A-12
therein, but weapons were recovered from other accused and
prosecution witnesses asserted that A-12 therein dealt a blow of
iron pipe on the deceased. This Court held that this was
sufficient to attract Section 149 IPC.
52. The above judgments outline the scope of Section 149 IPC.
We need to sum up the principles so as to examine the present
case in their light. Section 141 IPC defines unlawful assembly to
be an assembly of five or more persons. They must have
common object to commit an offence. Section 142 IPC postulates
that whoever being aware of facts which render any assembly
an unlawful one intentionally joins the same would be a
member thereof. Section 143 IPC provides for punishment for
being a member of unlawful assembly. Section 149 IPC provides
for constructive liability of every person of an unlawful
assembly if an offence is committed by any member thereof in
prosecution of the common object of that assembly or such of the
members of that assembly who knew to be likely to be
committed in prosecution of that object. The most important
ingredient of unlawful assembly is common object. Common
object of the persons composing that assembly is to do any act
or acts stated in clauses “First”, “Second”, “Third”, “Fourth” and
“Fifth” of that section. Common object can be formed on the spur
of the moment. Course of conduct adopted by the members of
common assembly is a relevant factor. At what point of time
common object of unlawful assembly was formed would depend
upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Once the case of
the person falls within the ingredients of Section 149 IPC, the
59
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
question that he did nothing with his own hands would be
immaterial. If an offence is committed by a member of the
unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object, any
member of the unlawful assembly who was present at the time
of commission of offence and who shared the common object of
that assembly would be liable for the commission of that offence
even if no overt act was committed by him. If a large crowd of
persons armed with weapons assaults intended victims, all
may not take part in the actual assault. If weapons carried by
some members were not used, that would not absolve them of
liability for the offence with the aid of Section 149 IPC if they
shared common object of the unlawful assembly.
53. But this concept of constructive liability must not be so
stretched as to lead to false implication of innocent bystanders.
Quite often, people gather at the scene of offence out of
curiosity. They do not share common object of the unlawful
assembly. If a general allegation is made against large number
of people, the court has to be cautious. It must guard against the
possibility of convicting mere passive onlookers who did not
share the common object of the unlawful assembly. Unless
reasonable direct or indirect circumstances lend assurance to
the prosecution case that they shared common object of the
unlawful assembly, they cannot be convicted with the aid
of Section 149 IPC. It must be proved in each case that the
person concerned was not only a member of the unlawful
assembly at some stage, but at all the crucial stages and
shared the common object of the assembly at all stages. The
court must have before it some materials to form an opinion that
the accused shared common object. What the common object of
the unlawful assembly is at a particular stage has to be
determined keeping in view the course of conduct of the
members of the unlawful assembly before and at the time of
attack, their behaviour at or near the scene of offence, the
motive for the crime, the arms carried by them and such other
relevant considerations. The criminal court has to conduct this
difficult and meticulous exercise of assessing evidence to avoid
roping innocent people in the crime. These principles laid down
by this Court do not dilute the concept of constructive liability.
They embody a rule of caution.”
123. In the light of aforesaid settled proposition of law, it can
be safely inferred that Common object of the unlawful
60
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
assembly can be gathered from the nature of the assembly,
and the behaviour of the assembly at or before scene of
occurrence. It is an inference to be deduced from the facts and
circumstances of each case.
124. In the background of the aforesaid settled legal
proposition of law, this Court is now adverting to the facts of
the case to decide the aforesaid issue and culpability of the
surviving appellants in alleged commission of crime.
125. In the present case, gruesome murder of the three
persons by the mob was done and hence, motive behind the
occurrence has to be seen. However, this Court is conscious
with the settled position of law that motive is not pre-requisite
for commission of crime but in the instant case, since, the
common object has been alleged, hence, it requires to
establish motive behind the alleged occurrence in order to
establish the common object.
126. In the fardbeyan informant had stated that Sonda
Sundi(deceased) and accused/ appellant Damu Sundi were
resident of Village Bara Guira and Damu Sundi, was village
Munda (village headman) at that relevant time and both Sonda
Sundi(deceased) and accused Damu Sundi, were in litigating
terms due the land dispute.
127. Further, in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it
has come that Hajura Sumbrui, who had tried to outrage the
modesty of Ganga Kui (P.W.-9), on Saturday night at about 9
61
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
P.M., on 22.02.1997, was resident of village Karkata, and he
was assaulted with fist and slap, by Har Singh Banra, Ram
Rai Banra and Sonda Sundi (deceased persons).
128. Thereafter, on the next day on 23.02.1997 at about 3
P.M., accused Hajura Sumbrui (since dead) had come to
village Bara Guira with his supporters of village Karkata and
in leadership Damu Sundi (village headman) to the house of
Sonda Sundi(deceased) forming a mob and had abducted Har
Singh Banra, Ram Rai Banra and Sonda Sundi from the house
of Sonda Sundi and later on basis of the confession
statement of accused Damu Sundi (village headman) all the
three dead bodies of Har Singh Banra, Ram Rai Banra and
Sonda Sundi were recovered from Roro River.
129. Hence, this court finds that motive behind the
occurrence of killing of three persons was that Hajura
Sumbrui was resident of village Karkata and when he was
assaulted by Har Singh Banra, Ram Rai Banra and Sonda
Sundi, as Hajura Sumbrui had tried to outrage the modesty of
Ganga Kui(P.W.-9),then, mob from village Karkata had come to
village Bara Guira to take revenge from Har Singh Banra, Ram
Rai Banra and Sonda Sundi and the accused Damu Sundi
(village headman), also got opportunity to settle the score who
had land dispute with the Sonda Sundi(deceased).
130. It is evident from impugned judgment, this court finds
that 33 accused persons had faced trial out of whom 3
accused persons were acquitted by the learned trial court and
62
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
accordingly 30 persons were convicted by the learned trial
court and sentenced as aforesaid.
131. Thereafter, 30 accused persons had filed batch of
appeal before this court. Here it is pertinent to note that
appellant Chara Hessa in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 180 of 199(R)
was granted remission in sentence by State Sentence
Remission Board. Hence, Coordinate Bench of this Court by
order dated 26.04.2018, had disposed the appeal of the
appellant Chera Hessa, as it had become infructuous.
132. Now, out of the remaining 29 appellants, 8 appellants
had died during the pendency of appeal as mentioned above.
133. Now the present appeal of rest surviving appellants has
to be decided based upon their culpability in the alleged
commission of crime by this court inter alia for their
conviction under sections 364/149 ,302/149 and 201 of IPC.
134. Informant P.W.-1 Shanti Kui had stated in her evidence
on 23.02.1997 at about 3 P.M., mob variously armed with
weapon had come to the house of her father Sonda
Sundi(deceased) and had abducted Har Singh Banra, Ram Rai
Banra and Sonda Sundi (deceased persons) and they were
taken to the house of Damu Sundi (village headman).
135. Informant P.W.-1 and P.W.-5 had stated in her evidence
that accused/appellant Damu Munda (village headman) was
member of the mob, who had abducted Har Singh Banra, Ram
Rai Banra and Sonda Sundi (deceased persons) and the mob
had taken the three persons to the house of
63
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
accused/appellant Damu Sundi (village headman).P.W.-9 has
also in her examination-in-chief, had deposed that village
Munda(village headman),whose she was not knowing the
name, was saying the members of the mob to take all the three
at his house for final decision in the matter.
136. Hence, P.W.-1, P.W.-5 and P.W-9 have specifically
named accused/appellant Damu Sundi (village headman) as a
member of the mob and all the three persons Har Singh
Banra, Ram Rai Banra and Sonda Sundi were taken to the
house of said Damu Sundi (village headman). Later, on body of
all the three deceased persons tied with stone boulder were
found on 25.02.1997, on the disclosure made by the
accused/appellant Damu Sundi in his confessional statement
(Ext.-3), from Runku Ekkir nala of river Roro.
137. Further, this court finds that informant P.W.-1 in her
cross-examination at paragraph-15 had specifically stated that
when the mob had come to the house of her father at that time
accused Bijay Sumbrui (Bijoy Sumbrui) was armed with bow
and arrow and danda(stick) and he had rope in his hand.
Informant has also deposed that Choko Sundi (Chogo Sundi)
was armed with danda (stick) and Turi Sumbrui was armed
with bow and arrow and spear.
138. Hence, prosecution has been able to prove that
appellants Damu Sundi (village headman),Bijoy Sumbrui
(Bijay Sumbrui), Chogo Sundi and Turi Sumbrui on
23.02.1997, at 3 P.M., when mob had come to the house of
64
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
Sonda Sundi(deceased), were members of the mob and
accused Bijay Sumbrui (Bijoy Sumbrui) was armed with bow
and arrow and danda(stick) and he had rope in his hand.
Informant has also deposed that Choko Sundi (Chogo Sundi)
was armed with danda (stick) and Turi Sumbrui was armed
with bow and arrow and spear.
139. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that the aforesaid
accused persons namely Damu Sundi (village headman), Bijay
Sumbrui (Bijoy Sumbrui), Turi Sumbrui and Choko Sundi
(Chogo Sundi) were member of the said mob and actively
participated in the alleged commission of crime i.e. abduction.
Further on the basis of the confessional statement of Damu
Sundi (village headman) dead bodies of all the three abducted
Har Singh Banra, Ram Rai Banra and Sonda Sundi were
recovered, therefore it can be safely inferred that the said
accused persons namely Damu Sundi (village headman), Bijay
Sumbrui (Bijoy Sumbrui), Turi Sumbrui and Choko Sundi
(Chogo Sundi) having common object of abduction and killing
of the deceased persons.
140. Thus, on the basis of discussion made hereinabove this
Court is of the view that the prosecution has been able to
prove the charges under sections 364/149,302/149 and 201
of IPC against appellants Chogo Sundi and Damu Sundi
appellants in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.158 of 1999(R) and
Appellants Bijoy Sumbrui (Bijay Sumbrui) and Turi Sumbrui
in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.281 of 1999(R).
65
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
141. Accordingly, Conviction of the appellants Bijoy
Sumbrui (Bijay Sumbrui) and Turi Sumbrui in Cr. Appeal (DB)
No.281 of 1999(R), under section 148 of IPC, is also sustained
and upheld.
142. Conviction of the appellants Chogo Sundi and Damu
Sundi in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.158 of 1999(R), under section 147
of IPC, is hereby also sustained and upheld.
143. Accordingly, Issue No.2 has been answered.
144. Learned amicus curiae for the appellants have
submitted that FIR was created subsequently since the FIR
was sent to the court after two days i.e. on 26.02.1997.
145. Hence, in other words learned amicus curiae have
submitted that there is delay in forwarding the F.I.R to the
Court i.e. requirement of section 157 CrPC was not complied.
146. Before proceeding further, it would be useful to see the
judgments delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court on the issue of
sending the report to the Magistrate as required under section
157 CrPC. The issue of sending the special report to the
Magistrate as required under section 157 CrPC was dealt by
Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ravi Kumar v. State of
Punjab, (2005) 9 SCC 315 and paragraph-16 of this
judgment is quoted herein below-
“16. Sending the copy of the special report to the Magistrate as
required under Section 157 CrPC is the only external check on the
working of the police agency, imposed by law which is required to
be strictly followed. The delay in sending the copy of the FIR may
by itself not render the whole of the case of the prosecution as
doubtful but shall put the court on guard to find out as to whether66
2026:JHHC:10238-DBthe version as stated in the court was the same version as earlier
reported in the FIR or was the result of deliberations involving
some other persons who were actually not involved in the
commission of the crime. Immediate sending of the report
mentioned in Section 157 CrPC is the mandate of law. Delay
wherever found is required to be explained by the prosecution. If
the delay is reasonably explained, no adverse inference can be
drawn but failure to explain the delay would require the court to
minutely examine the prosecution version for ensuring itself as to
whether any innocent person has been implicated in the crime or
not.”
147. Hence, in Ravi Kumar(Supra), Hon’ble court has held
that delay wherever found is required to be explained by the
prosecution. If the delay is reasonably explained, no adverse
inference can be drawn but failure to explain the delay would
require the court to minutely examine the prosecution version
for ensuring itself as to whether any innocent person has been
implicated in the crime or not.
148. This court finds that in the present case formal FIR was
drawn on 24.02.1997 at 5.00 P.M. and received in the court
on 26.02.1997. So, there is delay of one day in sending the
FIR to the Magistrate.
149. On going through the FIR, this court finds that in the
FIR informant had stated that mob had taken away three
persons namely Sonda Sundi, Ram Rai Banra and Har Singh
Banra and all these three persons did not return home. Then,
on the next day confessional statement (Ext.-3) of one of the
accused Damu Sundi was recorded on 25.02.1997 and on his
disclosure made in the confessional statement i.e. on
67
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
25.02.1997, bodies of these three abducted persons were
recovered from Roro River in presence of the informant, her
mother and sister from Runku Ekir Ghat of river Roro in
Village Chhota Khunta, by the divers Tulsi Karwa and Paltu
Karwa, who took out the dead bodies from river waters.
150. Hence, prosecution has been able to explain that on
25.02.1997, police was busy in recovery of the bodies of the
abducted three persons, hence, there was delay of one day in
sending the FIR to the Magistrate.
151. So, far as conviction of the remaining appellants are
concerned, this court finds that there is no witnesses have
alleged any overt act committed by them specifically in terms
of their alignment with the common object or weapon carried
by them and in the facts and circumstances, merely presence
of these appellants at the scene of occurrence or they being
simply named by prosecution witnesses, may not be cogent
ground to convict theses appellants with the aid of Section
149 of IPC.
152. Hence, prosecution has failed to prove the charges
under sections 364/149,302/149, 201 and 147 of IPC against
the remaining other appellants.
153. In the result, impugned Judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 20.04.1999 passed by learned 1 st
Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa, in Sessions Case
No.257 of 1997, so far as it relates to the appellants Bijoy
68
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
Sumbrui and Turi Sumbrui in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.281 of
1999(R) and appellants Chogo Sundi and Damu Sundi in
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.158 of 1999(R) are hereby sustained and
upheld.
154. Consequent upon dismissal of the appeal of the
appellants Bijoy Sumbrui (Bijay Sumbrui), Turi Sumbrui,
Chogo Sundi and Damu Sundi, since the appellants are
enjoying the suspension of sentence after order passed by this
court directing to release him during pendency of the appeal,
the bail bond of these appellants are hereby cancelled and
appellants are directed to surrender before the learned trial
court for serving out the sentence passed against him.
155. The remaining appellants, namely, Manjhi Sumbrui
appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.281 of 1999(R), Dildar Sundi,
appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.102 of 1999(R), Ramesh
Sundi, appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.136 of 1999(R), Nauru
Sundi, Chhota @ Vijay Sundi, Bhagwan Sundi, Bishkishan
Sundi, Pradhan Sundi, ganga sundi, Bagun Sundi, @ Mutu
Sundi and Babu Lal Sundi, appellants in Cr. Appeal (DB)
No.158 of 1999(R), Anand Sundi appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB)
No.159 of 1999(R), Ram Singh Sundi, Dubraj Purty, Barju
Sundi and Nara Purty, appellants in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.269 of
1999(R), are acquitted of the charges by giving them benefit of
doubt. Hence, they are discharged from the liabilities of their
bail bond.
69
2026:JHHC:10238-DB
156. Accordingly, the instant batch of appeal stands
disposed of.
157. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court
concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this Judgment.
158. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands
disposed of.
159. Before parting with this Judgment, we must record that
we have been given able assistance by Mr. Manjeet Kr.
Chaudhary, Mr. Imran Beig and Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj,
learned amicus curiae appointed by this Court for the
appellants.
160. We accordingly, direct the Secretary, High Court Legal
Services Committee, Ranchi, to make the payment of the
prescribed remuneration to the learned amicus curiae.
161. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the Secretary,
High Court Legal Services Committee, Ranchi, for the needful.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
I agree.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.) (Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated, the 8th April, 2026.
Birendra / A.F.R.
Uploaded on 16.04.2026
70