2026:JHHC:30925-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 638 of 2017

[Against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 19.12.2016 and

20.12.2016 respectively passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I,

Sahibganj in Sessions Trial No. 251 of 2011 arising out of Sahibganj (M) P.S.

Case No. 94 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. No. 226 of 2011.]

--------

Billa Yadav @ Jaidular Yadav, Son of Prabhu Nath Yadav, Resident of

Village- Samada, P.O.- Sakrigali, P.S.- Sahibganj (M), Dist.- Sahibganj.

... ... Appellant

Versus

The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent

-----

P R E S E N T

SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

SRI PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA , J.

--------

For the Appellant : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate

: Mr. Ashutosh Kr. Sinha, Advocate

: Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P.

--------

JUDGEMENT

C.A.V. on: 28.09.2026 Pronounced on: 15/10/2026

Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. Instant Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction

and order of sentence dated 19.12.2016 and 20.12.2016 respectively

passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sahibganj in Sessions

Trial No. 251 of 2011 arising out of Sahibganj (M) P.S. Case No. 94 of

2011 corresponding to G.R. No. 226 of 2011, whereby and whereunder,

the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the

Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

life alongwith the fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation.

2026:JHHC:30925-DB

2 | P a g e

(Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 638 of 2017)

Factual Matrix:-

2. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 14.05.2011 in the

evening hour at about 6:00 P.M., the informant was standing on a Kacchi

Sadak lying in front of his house and his father was going to call his

neighbour Niwas Mandal for seeking his assistance for pulling the

bamboo, which was already cut down by him. It is alleged that his

opposite door neighbour, the accused Billa Yadav, on account of old

enmity, inflicted Jhorani (a sharp edged weapon) blow causing severe cut

injury over the neck of his father as a result of which, he fell down on the

earth and the accused alongwith the Jhorani, fled away towards western

side and threw the weapon in the bush. It is further alleged that after lapse

of 5 to 7 minutes, his father succumbed to the injury on the spot. After the

incident, the nearby people being 100 in numbers assembled there to

whom, the informant narrated the incident. Later on his mother Purani

Devi and brother also reached there. Thereafter, the incident was reported

to the police by the villagers.

3. On the basis of above fardbeyan of the informant, F.I.R. (Sahibganj

(M) P.S. Case No. 94 of 2011) was registered against the above named

accused for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C.

4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against

above named appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C.

After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions,

where Sessions Trial No. 251 of 2011 was registered.

5. The appellant denied the charge levelled against him and claimed to

be tried.

2026:JHHC:30925-DB

3 | P a g e

(Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 638 of 2017)

6. In the course of trial altogether 10 witnesses have been examined by

the prosecution. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, following

documentary evidence has been adduced:-

i. Exhibit-1: Signature of the informant on the fardbeyan.

ii. Exhibit-2: Postmortem report

iii. Exhibit-3: Signature of Jitan Kumar Mandal on seizure list.

iv. Exhibit-4: Farbeyan

v. Exhibit-5: Formal F.I.R.

vi. Exhibit-6: Produciton-cum-Seizure list

vii. Exhibit-7: Seizure list of blood stained soil.

7. On the other hand, defence has examined one witness, namely, DW-1

Dharmdeo Yadav and no documentary evidence has been adduced by him.

The case of the defence is denial from the occurrence and plea of

innocence.

8. The learned Trial Court after evaluating the evidence oral as well as

documentary led by the respective parties, arrived at definite conclusion

about the guilt of the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the

Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court convicted and

sentenced the appellant as stated above, which has been assailed in this

appeal.

Submissions on behalf of appellant: -

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant assailing the

impugned judgement has submitted that the learned Trial Court has

miserably failed to properly appreciate the evidence available on record.

The statements of the informant, who is son of the deceased, his mother,

2026:JHHC:30925-DB

4 | P a g e

(Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 638 of 2017)

brother and other independent witnesses are self-contradictory and not

consistent to the version of each other. Kanhai Mandal (PW-3) and Tinku

Kr. Mandal (PW-5) are said to be the eye witness of the occurrence but

they can't be said to be an eye witness as their evidence are contradictory

with each other. In the F.I.R. itself, the informant has alleged that due to

old enmity the accused inflicted jhorni blow on his father but in the cross-

examination, he admits that there was no previous enmity with the

accused. It is further submitted that there is no iota of cogent and reliable

evidence against the present appellant to connect him with the alleged

occurrence. The alleged murder weapon, i.e., jhorni has neither been

recovered from conscious possession of the appellant nor on the basis of

his confessional statement. Moreover, the alleged seized weapon is not

connected with the commission of crime. It is also submitted that the

seized materials, i.e., blood stained soil and murder weapon Jhorni have

never been sent to the S.F.S.L for its chemical analysis, as such, in

absence of the report, the very factum of recovery and preparation of

seizure list does not have any relevance in the facts and circumstance of

the case. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence

suffers from serious illegality, based on conjecture and surmises and liable

to be set aside and the appellant deserves to be acquitted from the charge

levelled against him. Accordingly, this appeal may be allowed.

Submissions on behalf of State:-

10. Per contra; learned A.P.P. defending the impugned judgment of

conviction and sentence of the appellant has argued that the learned Trial

Court has very wisely and aptly analysed overall aspects of the case and

2026:JHHC:30925-DB

5 | P a g e

(Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 638 of 2017)

properly scrutinized the evidence available on record. There is strong

circumstantial evidence against the appellant showing his involvement in

commission of murder of the deceased. The informant alongwith other

eye witness of the occurrence have fully supported the prosecution case.

The learned Trial Court has considered every aspect of the case, which

has been got explained in the examination of the accused under Section

313 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the

impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant calling for

any interference in this appeal, which is devoid of merits and fit to be

dismissed.

Analysis, discussions and reasons: -

11. We have gone through the record of the case alongwith impugned

judgment in the light of contentions raised on behalf of respective parties.

12. On the basis of rival contentions of both the parties, the only question

for consideration in this appeal emerges that “as to whether the

impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant suffers

from any serious error of law calling for any interference in this appeal

or not?”

13. Before adverting to record any finding on the above point, we have to

appraise with the evidence available on record adduced by the

prosecution during trial.

14. It appears that altogether 10 witnesses have been examined in this

case by the prosecution:-

15. PW-1 Purni Masomat is wife of the deceased Suchan Mandal. She

has stated that on the relevant date of occurrence, her husband had gone

2026:JHHC:30925-DB

6 | P a g e

(Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 638 of 2017)

to call his next door neighbour for having his assistance for pulling the

bamboo and in that course, when he was on the way, the accused Billa

Yadav inflicted by means of Jhorni (Sharp cut weapon), which resulted

into cut injury over his neck, which led to his instantaneous death and the

accused alongwith weapon fled away. She has further deposed that

Somani Masomat (PW-2) had come there and also seen the occurrence.

In her cross-examination, she admits that deceased was his husband

and there was no any enmity with the accused prior to the occurrence.

She has further stated that "मेरे पति मार खाकर तगर गए िो वहा� पर पा�च छ�

सौ �दमी जमा हो गया।" She has further deposed at para-5 that मैं हल्ला

ककया था की तिल्ला मारकर भाग गया। मैं �केली औरि को तहम्मि नहीं था कक

उसको पकड़ सकिे। दातहना गददन पर मारा था। पुतलस ने पूछिाछ ककया था।"

PW-2 Somni Masomat has also stated that the deceased had gone to

call his next door neighbour for having his assistance for pulling the

bamboo and in that course, the accused Billa Yadav inflicted by means of

Jhorni (Sharp cut weapon) to deceased Suchan Mandal, which resulted

into cut injury over his neck, which led to his death.

She has stated in her cross-examination at para-4 that "सूचन म�डल के

घर मेरा खूि �ना जाना होिा है। उससे दोस्िी था उसके पररवार के साथ भी

दोस्िी है। सूचन म�डल को पा�च छोटा छोटा िच्चा है। �ज मैं सूचन म�डल के पत्नी के

वास्िे गवाही देने �यी ह� जैसे जैसे पत्नी ििाई वह िाि िोली ह�।"

PW-3 Kanhai Mandal has stated that he was doing some electric

work on the pole and the deceased Suchan Mandal was coming for

getting assistance by his neighbour to pull bamboo, at the same time, the

2026:JHHC:30925-DB

7 | P a g e

(Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 638 of 2017)

accused Billa Yadav inflicted blow by Jhorni on the left side neck of

deceased Suchan Mandal, due to which he fell on the earth and

succumbed to his injury. Thereafter, on hulla, villagers reached there.

Police also reached there and his statement was also recorded.

In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that his house is

situated at 20 meter distance from the house of deceased. He has further

stated that he has come to the Court on instruction of wife of the

deceased Suchan Mandal. He was not in talking terms with the deceased

and he had not gone to his house prior to the occurrence but after

occurrence he started going his house. He had tried to catch the accused

but could not succeed due to coming down from electric pole. He has

further stated that except him, no one was present at the time of

occurrence.

PW-4 Jagdish Mandal @ Jagdish Kr. Mandal is the informant of

this case. He has stated that the occurrence took place in the evening at

6:00 P.M. on 14.05.2011. At that time, he was just a bit ahead to his

father, who was calling his neighbour for helping in pulling the bamboo,

which was already cut by him. Then, the accused came there and inflicted

Jhorani blow to his father causing severe cut injury over his neck, as a

result of which, he fell down on the earth writhing with pain and thereby

succumbed to his injury on the spot. Thereafter, he started crying then the

villagers reached there and seeing their arrival, the accused fled away

from there. Thereafter, the police came there and recorded his statement,

which has been marked as Ext.-1.

2026:JHHC:30925-DB

8 | P a g e

(Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 638 of 2017)

In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that there was some

darkness as the occurrence took place in the evening. The accused had

inflicted blow upon his father within one minute and fled away instantly.

After four to five minutes, the villagers arrived. He does not know as to

who had informed the police. He has further stated in his cross-

examination that he was ahead of his father. His father had no enmity

with the accused prior to the occurrence. He had shown the blood stained

soil to the police but the same was not seized by the police.

PW-5 Tinku Kr. Mandal is another son of the deceased. He has also

stated that at the time of occurrence, he was in the gali situated in front of

his house. His father was going to call his neighbour for his help in

pulling the bamboo, which was already cut by him. Then, the accused

came there and inflicted blow by Jhorani to his father causing severe cut

injury over his neck, as a result of which, he fell down and died. On our

screaming and crying, the villagers reached there. Thereafter, the police

also arrived there. Police also recorded his statement and his elder

brother's statement.

In his cross-examination, he has stated that neighbour Niwas Mandal

had not come out from his house even after the occurrence. He cannot

say as to who had informed the police. His elder brother had reached first

at the place of occurrence and thereafter he reached after two minutes.

This witness has also stated that there was no enmity with the accused

prior to the occurrence.

2026:JHHC:30925-DB

9 | P a g e

(Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 638 of 2017)

PW-6 Dr. Devesh Kumar is the Medical Officer, who performed

post-mortem of deceased Suchan Mandal on 15.05.2011 and found

following external injuries:

Rigor mortis was present in both the upper and lower limbs.

On External Examination:-

Eyes-open, mouth- closed; hair- black, no bleeding from mouth or

nostril.

Sharp and deep cut wound measuring 6"x2" present on the left

lateral side of neck.

On Internal Examination:-

Skull- N.A.D.

On opening the skull brain- N.A.D.

On opening the chest lungs- N.A.D.

Heart- Empty.

On opening the abdomen- No blood present in the abdominal

cavity.

Lower limb- N.A.D.

Cause of death- opined to be shock and haemorrhage, due to cut on

left side of neck by any sharp cutting object.

Time elapsed since death- within 24 hours.

He has proved the post-mortem report, marked as Ext.- 2.

In cross-examination, this witness has admitted that such type

of cut injury can be caused if a man falls over a sharp cutting

weapon in the proportional force.

2026:JHHC:30925-DB

10 | P a g e

(Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 638 of 2017)

PW-7 Dinesh Yadav had gone to see the deceased in the morning. He

has also shown his unawareness about the occurrence as to who had

killed the deceased. He has been declared hostile by the prosecution.

This witness has been cross-examined by the prosecution, wherein, he

has denied any statement given before the police with regard to the

occurrence.

PW-8 Jitan Mandal has also expressed his no knowledge about the

occurrence. As such, he was also declared hostile by prosecution.

This witness has been cross-examined by the prosecution, wherein, he

has denied the suggestion of prosecution that on 14.05.2011, on hearing

hulla, he had gone to the place of occurrence, where he came to know

that the accused Billa Yadav fled away after slitting the throat of

deceased Suchan Mandal. He identifies his signature on the seizure list

marked as Ext.-3.

This witness has also been cross-examined by the defence, wherein,

he shows his unawareness about signature on the seizure list.

PW-9 Chhabinath Yadav has stated that he came to know about the

murder of someone by the police. Police had not inquired from him about

the occurrence and only took his signature on the seizure list. Thereafter,

this witness has been declared hostile.

PW-10 Sri Bhagwan Singh is the Investigating Officer of this case.

He has stated that on dated 14.05.2011, he was posted at Sahibganj

Mufassil Police Station as the Station House Officer (SHO / Thana In-

charge). On the very same day, a telephonic information was received

stating that a person has been murdered in the village Sakrigali. Upon

2026:JHHC:30925-DB

11 | P a g e

(Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 638 of 2017)

receiving this information, he accompanied with police force proceeded

towards the said village to conduct field verification. He found the

telephonic information to be accurate upon arriving at the spot.

Thereafter, he officially recorded the statement of PW-4 Jagdish Kumar

Mandal, who is the son of the deceased. He disclosed that the accused

Billa Yadav (son of Nunu Mahto), inflicted Jhorni blow on neck of his

father and deliberately murdered him. The Fardbeyan of informant

Jagdish Kumar Mandal (PW-4) has been marked as Ext.-4 and the formal

F.I.R. as Ext.-5. He has further stated that in the course of the

investigation, he systematically prepared the Inquest Report of the

deceased, the official entry of which was recorded sequentially in the

Case Diary. The sharp-edged murder weapon (Jhorni) was seized, and a

seizure list was prepared with details of the collection of the weapon in

the presence of independent recovery witnesses, namely, Chhabinath

Yadav and Gedan Mandal. The seizure list available on record, has been

marked as Ext.- 6. Similarly, blood-stained soil was collected from the

place of occurrence, and a matching seizure list was compiled in the

presence of witnesses Jitan Kr. Mandal and Munna Kumar marked as

Ext.-7. In further course of the investigation, he sent the dead body of the

deceased to Sadar Hospital, Sahibganj, for a comprehensive post-mortem

examination. Following that action, he completed a detailed physical

inspection of the place of occurrence and recorded as follows:

The place of occurrence is an unpaved rural road situated directly

between the village of Sakrigali Samda Seej and the house belonging to

the accused. Adjoining this road to the North situates the house of the

2026:JHHC:30925-DB

12 | P a g e

(Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 638 of 2017)

deceased, and directly to the South is the house of the accused. The

precise boundaries (Chauhaddi) are defined as: East: Residence of Paltu

Yadav and a community handpump (Chaapakal), West: Residence of

Arjun Yadav, North: Residence of the deceased, Suchan Mandal and

South: Residence of Billa Yadav (accused) and Ajay Kumar Yadav. After

executing the inspection, he re-recorded the statement of the informant

and compiled statements from other structural witnesses, namely: Tinku

Mandal (brother of the informant), Mostt. Purani Devi, and fellow

villagers Kanhai Mandal, Chhabinath Yadav, Sumni Masommat, and

Dinesh Yadav, all of whom consistently supported the occurrence.

During the investigation, he also obtained the official criminal history

profile of the accused and detailed it inside the Case Diary. Thereafter, he

received the official Post-Mortem (P.M.) Report. Having finalized the

investigation across all critical verification points, and acting under

instructions from senior command, finding the underlying case facts to be

true, he submitted the formal Charge Sheet against the accused under

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.).

In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that Samda Seej

village consists roughly of two to three hundred households. It is correct

that towards the west of the boundaries is the place of occurrence, the

house of Arjun Yadav is situated completely outside. He admits that

during the course of the investigation, the blood-stained sharp weapon

(Jhorni), which was seized, was not sent to the laboratory for forensic

examination. He has further stated that the word "blood stain" was later

on added by pen on column 6 of seizure list, which is exhibited on

2026:JHHC:30925-DB

13 | P a g e

(Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 638 of 2017)

record. Similarly, Sakrigali Samda Seej village is situated at the specified

location from where the blood-stained soil was recovered. He denies the

suggestion of defence that he did not conduct the investigation of this

case in a lawful, methodical manner and he has submitted charge sheet

based on insufficient evidence under the pressure or orders of the senior

officers.

16. On the other hand, case of the defence is denial from the occurrence

and false implication only on the basis of suspicion.

17. The defence has also examined one witness, namely, DW-1

Dharmdeo Yadav. He has stated that the accused Billa Yadav is innocent

and has been falsely implicated in this case. Allegation of murder against

the accused is baseless.

18. We have given thoughtful consideration to overall aspects of the case

as testified by the prosecution witnesses during trial and also examined

the evidence available on record.

19. We have also gone through the impugned judgment, it transpires that

on the basis of testimony of P.W.- 4, Jagdish Mandal @ Jagdish Kr.

Mandal, who claimed to be eye-witness of the occurrence, the present

appellant has been held guilty and sentenced.

20. The evidence of P.W.-4 itself does not inspire confidence to be acted

upon as wholly reliable witness. He has admitted inimical terms with the

present appellant initially in the F.I.R. but in his cross-examination, he

has stated that his father had no enmity with the accused prior to the

occurrence. Moreover, the testimony PW-1 mother of the informant and

PW-5 brother of the informant also admit no previous enmity with

2026:JHHC:30925-DB

14 | P a g e

(Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 638 of 2017)

accused. PW-1 & PW-5 also claim to be the eye witnesses but from their

evidence, it appears to be something doubtful as PW-1 has not stated

anywhere that she was present at the place of occurrence and PW-5

reached at the place of occurrence after the informant. It also transpired

from the evidence of PW-3, who also claimed to have seen the

occurrence, wherein, the present appellant was seen while inflicting

Jhorni blow on the neck of the deceased causing cut injury on the left

side of his neck and by sustaining the same, he fell on the surface and

succumbed to his injury. In this context, PW-3 in his examination during

trial has stated that he climbed up on the electric pole for some electric

work, whereas in his cross-examination, he does not claim to be an

electrician. In his cross-examination, he states that he has come to the

Court on instruction of wife of the deceased Suchan Mandal. He was not

in talking terms with the deceased and he had not gone to his house prior

to the occurrence but after occurrence he started going his house. He also

claims that except this witness, no one was present at the time of

occurrence.

21. The investigating officer, (PW-10) has seized the sharp-edged murder

weapon (Jhorni) produced at the crime scene by the informant and a

seizure list was prepared with details of the collection of the weapon in

the presence of independent recovery witnesses, namely, Chhabinath

Yadav (PW-9) and Gedan Mandal. Similarly, the blood-stained soil was

collected from the place of occurrence and a matching seizure list was

compiled in the presence of witnesses Jitan Kr. Mandal (PW-8) and

Munna Kumar. The aforesaid seized materials have not been sent to

2026:JHHC:30925-DB

15 | P a g e

(Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 638 of 2017)

S.F.S.L. for chemical examination. In this context, the informant (PW-4)

himself has deposed in his cross-examination that he had shown the

blood stained soil to the police but the same was not seized by the police

at the time of arrival of police. Moreover, so far recovery of the murder

weapon is concerned, the same has neither been recovered from

conscious possession of the appellant nor upon his confessional

statement. There is also doubt as to how and from which place the

murder weapon was recovered. The investigating officer has also not

explained in this regard.

22. In view of above discussion and reasons, it appears that the testimony

of the informant PW-4 and PW-3 Kanhai Mandal cannot be relied upon.

There is no other evidence on record, showing direct involvement of the

present appellant in the alleged offence. The whole prosecution story

appears to be doubtful. The conduct of PW-3 himself is doubtful. The

overall material collected during investigation and the evidence of

witnesses shows that they have given contradictory statements in material

particulars. Therefore, the evidence of the informant, mother and brother

of the informant and PW-3, who projected themselves to be eye witness,

cannot be believed. It is trite that where the offence is severely

punishable, the evidence must also be of higher quality, concrete, cogent

and reliable. The learned Trial Court has not properly considered the

evidence of witnesses in right perspective and ignored the material

contradictions appearing in their evidence as regards commission of

alleged murder by the present appellant. They cannot be branded as

wholly reliable witnesses or the eye witnesses of the occurrence.

2026:JHHC:30925-DB

16 | P a g e

(Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 638 of 2017)

23. Therefore, we are of the firm view that the learned Trial Court has

committed serious error of law while placing reliance upon inconsistent

and scanty circumstances available on record for basing the conviction of

the appellant. Therefore, the appellant is extended the benefit of

reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the impugned judgement of conviction

and sentence of the appellant is hereby set aside.

24. The appellant is acquitted from the charge levelled against him.

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.

25. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands disposed of.

26. The appellant is in custody, as such, he is directed to be released

forthwith, if not required in any other case.

27. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court records be sent back

immediately to the concerned Trial Court for information and needful.

(PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.)

Per Ananda Sen, J. : I Agree

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi

Date: 15/10/2026

Rahul/ N. A. F. R.

Uploaded on: 15/10/2026