2026:JHHC:5814-DB

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Criminal Appeal (DB) No.163 of 2003

[Against the common judgment of order of conviction and sentence dated

20.01.2003, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-F.T.C. No.2, Deoghar

in Sessions Trial No.16 of 2001]

-----

1. Gulam Pandit, Son of Late Dhanpat Pandit,

2. Vasudeo Pandit, Son of Gulam Pandit,

3. Shambhu Pandit, Son of Gulam Pandit,

All residents of village: Sarkanda—Paharpur, P.S. Kunda (Jasidih),

District- Deoghar. .... …. Appellants

Versus

The State of Jharkhand ..... .... Respondent

With

Criminal Appeal (DB) No.585 of 2003

------

Kishore Pandit, Son of GulamPandit, resident of village- Sarkanda—

Paharpur, P.S.-Kunda (Jasidih), District- Deoghar.

.... …. Appellant

Versus

The State of Jharkhand ..... .... Respondent

------

For the Appellants : Mr. Aditya Kumar Choudhary, Advocate.

Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate.

Mr. Prathik, Advocate.

For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P.

PRESENT

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

-----

JUDGMENT

C.A.V. On:-03

rd December, 2025 Pronounced on:- 25 /02/2026

Per:- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. Above captioned appeals are arising out of common judgment.

Hence, taken together for hearing.

2. We have already heard Mr. Aditya Kumar Choudhary, learned

counsel for the appellants as well as Mrs. Nehala Sharmin,

Special Public Prosecutor.

2026:JHHC:5814-DB

2

3. Instant criminal appeals are directed against the common

judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.01.2003, passed by

learned Additional Sessions Judge-F.T.C. No.2, Deoghar in

Sessions Trial No.16 of 2001, whereby and whereunder, the

appellants have been held guilty for the offences under Sections

302/201/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment

for life for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and directed

to undergo S.I. for 06months under Section 201 of the I.P.C. All the

sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Factual Matrix

4. Factual matrix giving rise to these appealsis that the daughter (Rekha

Devi) of the informant was married with Kishore Pandit about 10 to

12 years prior to occurrence and has been blessed with a child aged

about 08 to 10 years. It is further alleged that the husband (Kishore

Pandit) of the daughter of the informant had solemnized second

marriage and since then, started subjecting his first wife (Rekha

Devi) with cruelty and harassed her by torturing, therefore, the

daughter of the informant filed a complaint case no. 233 of 1999

under Section 498A of the I.P.C. against her husband before Deoghar

Court and started living at her parental home. It is further alleged

that on 15.07.2000, date was fixed for hearing in the aforesaid

complaint case filed by the daughter of the informant before

Deoghar Court, where both parties along with other co-accused

persons were present and on oral direction of court Rekha Devi

proceeded with her husband to her matrimonial home on assurance

2026:JHHC:5814-DB

3

that she will be kept with all dignity and honor. Accordingly, the

complainant Rekha Devi left the Court at about 04:00 PM on

15.07.2000 and proceeded to her matrimonial home at village

Sarkanda. It is further alleged that on 16.07.2000, in between 11:00 to

12:00 hours in night, informant came to know from one Ayodhya

Pandit that the accused persons had not taken Rekha Devi to

matrimonial home rather they have killed her in the way and thrown

the dead body into a well at Chandi Dih Bahiyar. In order to verify

the above information about the murder of his daughter and after

finding the aforesaid information correct, the informant has lodged

F.I.R.

5. On the basis of above fardbeyan of the informant (Prayag Pandit)

Jasidih (Kunda)P.S. Case No 128 of 2000 was instituted against all the

appellants namely Gulam Pandit, Sudama Devi,Vasudeo Pandit,

Shambhu Pandit and Kishor Pandit for the offences under Sections

302/34/201 of the Indian Penal Code dated 17.07.2000, but other co-

accused persons namely Panda Pandit, Raghunath Pandit and Bhola

Pandit were not sent up for trial.

6. After conclusion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted for the

offence under Sections 302/34/201of the I.P.C.

7. The case was committed to the court of sessions for trial where

appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. In order to prove the charges against the appellants, the

prosecution has examined 14 witnesses and apart from oral

2026:JHHC:5814-DB

4

testimony of witnesses following documentary evidences were

also adduced:-

Exhibit-1:- Signature of Prayag Pandit (Informant).

Exhibit-2:-Post-Mortem Report of Rekha Devi.

Exhibit-3:-Fardbeyan.

Exhibit-4:- Carbon Copy of inquest report.

Exhibit-5:- Compromise Petition between Kishore Pandit & Rekha

Devi filed in A.B.P.N. 211 of 211/1999.

Exhibit-6:- Endorsement order-sheet dated 25.01.2000 in A.B.P. No.

211/1999.

Exhibit-7:- Carbon Copy of judgment in T.R. Case No. 648 of 2002.

Exhibit-8 to 8/1:- Petition dated 17.07.2000 & 18.01.2000.

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

and false implication and also adduced the following:

Exhibit-A:-Complaint Petition in P.C.R. No. 233 of 1999.

Exhibit-B:- Carbon Copy of Vakalatnama filed on behalf of Rekha

Devi in P.C.R. No. 233 of 1999.

Exhibit-C:- Carbon Copy of Petition filed by the complainant dated

27.06.2000 in P.C.R. Case No. 233 of 1999.

Exhibit-D:- Carbon Copy of Petition filed by the accused Kishore

Pandit dated 26.06.2000 in P.C.R. Case No. 233 of 1999.

Exhibit-E:- Carbon copy of rejoinder petition filed by the accused

Kishore Pandit dated 15.07.2000.

Exhibit-F:- Carbon copy of order sheet dated 15.07.2000 passed in

P.C.R. Case No. 233 of 1999.

2026:JHHC:5814-DB

5

10. After conclusion of trial, the appellants have been held guilty and

sentenced as stated above, which has been assailed in these appeals.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that

learned trial court has miserably failed to properly appreciate that

out of 14 witnesses examined by the prosecution, none of them are

eye-witness of occurrence. The most vital fact stated against the

appellants that they have taken away the daughter of the informant

with them from the court on the oral direction of the court, but

nothing has been brought on record by the prosecution to prove the

above facts. The defence has also brought on record the order-sheet

dated 15.07.2000 of the complaint case No. 233 of 1999 under Section

498A, 323, 379 of the I.P.C. which does not reveal above facts and

there is no whisper at all in the order sheet dated 15.07.2000 that the

accused persons have taken the deceased with them on assurance

that they will keep the deceased with full dignity and honor. None of

the prosecution witnesses have seen the deceased and the accused

persons together on the date of alleged incident. It is further

submitted that in the statement of accused persons recorded under

Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. there is no question that they have taken

away the deceased along with them on oral direction of court passed

in Complaint Case No.233 of 1999. Therefore, the very genesis of the

occurrence is based upon conjecture and surmises, the dead body of

the deceased has not been found from the house of the appellant nor

they were aware of the said incident. It is further contended that

from the Post-Mortem report of the deceased, it appears to be a step

2026:JHHC:5814-DB

6

of commission of suicide by her showing no involvement of the

appellant in causing any injuries to her or dashing into well. The

informant (P.W.8) who happens to be the father of the deceased, has

admitted in clear terms that on the date of occurrence, the deceased

was living with him at parental home and went to attend the court's

proceeding. He has not denied that on the date of occurrence, he has

not gone to court with his daughter. It is quite unnatural to imagine

that court would direct the wife to go again with her husband, when

the application dated 29.06.2000 was filed by the complainant

(deceased) against her husband and in-laws for ill-treatment and

torture meted to her at the instance of husband and other co-

accused-persons, hence she returned back to her parental home on

25.06.2000 due to clear cut violation of compromise between the

parties and the rejoinder was also filed by the appellants on

15.07.2000, which has to be disposed of on the next date. There is no

whisper in the order dated 15.07.2000 that the deceased was sent to

her matrimonial home again, in spite of her complaint of ill-

treatment and torture. It is further submitted that there may be

possibility of suicide by deceased under overwhelming

circumstances due to her matrimonial dispute. There is no concrete

evidence against the appellants to sustain their conviction for the

offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. The learned trial court has

miserably failed to consider the evidence available on record and

arrived at wrong conclusion while recording the guilt of the

appellants for offence of murder. The impugned judgment suffers

2026:JHHC:5814-DB

7

from serious error of law and based upon concealment of material

facts. Therefore, impugned judgment and order deserves to be set

aside, allowing this appeal.

12. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor has opposed

the contentions raised on behalf of appellants and submitted that

both the parties have led their evidence in respect of marriage and

dispute between the deceased and the appellants. The complaint

case lodged under Section 498A of the I.P.C. is admitted one wherein

the appellant-husband was granted bail on the basis of compromise

to keep his wife with full dignity and honour. The deceased was

taken to her matrimonial home, but again she was driven away due

to presence of second wife of her husband, she was subjected to

cruelty and harassment. An informatory application was filed on

behalf of deceased in the complaint case lodged under Section 498A

of the I.P.C. for cancellation of bail of the accused persons due to

violation of terms and condition of compromise. The rejoinder was

also filed by the appellants on 15.07.2000. Under such circumstances,

it is quite strange to assume that the deceased wife was not sent to

join her matrimonial home with her husband as per oral order of the

court. The learned trial court has very wisely and aptly considered

all the aspects of the case as well as oral and documentary evidence

available on record and arrived at right conclusion about the guilt of

the appellants in respect of charges leveled against them. The

appellants have failed to brought any material evidence on record to

disbelieve the prosecution story and also failed to point out any

2026:JHHC:5814-DB

8

illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment calling for any

interfere in this appeal, which is devoid of merits and fit to be set

dismissed.

13. The only point for determination in these appeals is that whether

the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of

the appellants suffers from any error of law calling for any

interference, or not?

14. Before imparting our verdict on the point, we have to apprise with

the evidence adduced in this case.

15. It appears that altogether 14 witnesses were examined by the

prosecution to substantiate the charges leveled against the accused

persons out of them P.W. 1 MohemmadAlam, P.W.2-Nimadhar

Pandit, P.W.3- Mohemmad Jabbar, P.W.4- Radhey Singh, P.W.-5

Sanjay Kumar, P.W.10- Pawan Kr. Pandit, P.W.11 Latif Mian,

P.W.12- Kamruddin have been declared hostile by the prosecution

and they have failed to express any knowledge about the incident.

16. Admittedly, there are no eye witnesses of the occurrence, the

prosecution case hinges upon circumstantial evidences alone.

The important circumstance which has been brought on record

by the informant-cum-father P.W.8 (Prayag Pandit) of the

deceased. According to his evidence, the husband of Rekha Devi

(deceased) solemnized second marriage thereafter, tense

relationship developed between husband and wife and Rekha

Devi lodged a complaint case against her husband which was

compromised and during the pendency of anticipatory bail

2026:JHHC:5814-DB

9

application of the husband of deceased, a compromise was entered

into between the parties in the month of January 2000 and the

deceased went to her matrimonial home, but again she was

neglected and tortured by her husband and returned to her

parental home and informed the Court about the ill-treatment

meted to her. On the oral order of the Court on 15.07.2000, the

deceased proceeded with her husband to her matrimonial home,

but in the way she was done to death by her husband and in-laws

family members.

P.W.6 Govind Pandit and P.W.7 Sita Ram Pandit are brothers of

informant and corroborated the version of P.W.8.

P.W.14 Shri Dhar Pandit is a formal witness who has proved the

compromise petition filed in A.B.P. No. 211 of 1999 and order

sheet dated 25.01.2000 (Exhibit-6) in connection with complaint

case lodged by Rekha Devi (deceased) under Section 498A of the

I.P.C. Other witnesses are family members of the deceased,

admittedly not eye-witnesses of the occurrence.

P.W.9 Dr. Rameshwar Mahto has conducted autopsy on the dead

body of the person of the deceased (Rekha Devi) on 17.07.2000 and

found following ante-mortem injuries:-

The body was swollen and there were bubbles all over the body.

There was bleeding from nose. Blood clot beneath the scalp and

there was fracture of right parietal bone. Brain and meninges pale.

On opening of chest-both lungs pale, heart right full of blood left

chamber empty. Abdomen- Stomach empty. Spleen, Kidneys and

2026:JHHC:5814-DB

10

liver pale. Bladder empty. Uterus having male fetus of about 16

week’s size.

External Gentilia- NAD.

Time elapsed since death within 48 hours at the time of Post-

Mortem examination.

It is opined that the death was due to hemorrhage and shock as a

result of above noted injury on the skull bone caused by hard and

blunt substance. There were no signs of drowning. He has proved

the post-mortem report as Exhibit-2.

In his cross-examination, this witness admits that there was

no visible injuries on the dead body. Fracture of parietal bone is

possible if the body jumps into the well and strikes against the

wall of the well. If parietal bone is fractured, the injured will

become unconscious immediately.

P.W.13 S.I. Janardan Kumar Singh is the investigating officer of

this case. According to his evidence, on 16.07.2000, he was posted

as Officer-In-Charge at Kunda Police Station. On that day, at about

16:00, he received information through rumor that near Chandi

Dih Bahiyar in a well, a dead body is lying. He recorded S.D. entry

and along with Choukidar, 6/4 Gunji Pandit, 6/5 Sukhdeo

Mahato, 6/3 Sitaram Hazra and armed forces proceeded towards

the place of occurrence. He reached village Chandi Dih Bahiyar at

about 06:30 PM from where at a distance of 01 kilometer near a

well, crowd was gathered. A dead body of a female was brought

out with the help of villagers. He also recorded fardbeyan of

2026:JHHC:5814-DB

11

Prayag Pandit (informant-cum-father of the deceased). Inquest

report was also prepared in presence of the witnesses. He also

recorded statements of Mohd. Kamruddin, Latif Mian, Jabbar

Mian of village Chandi Dih Bahiyar. He further recorded the

statement of witnesses namely Pawan Kumar Pandit, Sakhshi

Madho Singh, Sakshi Tunni @ Dinesh Kumar Lal, Sanjay Singh

and others. He has proved the fardbeyan as Exhibit-3, inquest

report as Exhibit-4 and after completion of investigation,

submitted charge-sheet again the accused persons.

In his cross-examination, he admits that in the inquest

report, Coloumn 4 is blank and during inquest, it was opined that

the deceased has died due to drowning. He also admits that he has

not inspected the case record wherein the compromise was entered

into between the parties.

17. On the other hand, defence has also examined two witnesses namely:-

D.W.1Binod Kumar is the formal witness and an advocate clerk

who has proved the complaint petition as Exhibit-A and

vakalatnama as Exhibit-B and petition dated 27.06.2000 as Exhibit-

C and signature of Rama Shankar Pandit, Advocate as C/1.

D.W.2 Binod Kumar Malviyais also an advocate Clerk and a

formal witness who has simply proved the petition dated

15.07.2000 as Exhibit-D.

18. We have given anxious consideration to the oral as well as

documentary evidences adduced by the parties during trial in the

2026:JHHC:5814-DB

12

light of contentions raised on behalf of both side and also gone

through the impugned judgment.

19. It appears from perusal of impugned judgment that without

entering into scrutinization of evidence of main witnesses of fact

namely Govind Pandit P.W.6, Sita Ram Pandit (P.W.7) and Prayag

Pandit (P.W.8) who are close relatives including the informant-

cum-father of the deceased, the learned trial court has relied upon

the circumstances propounded by the prosecution in totality as a

gospel truth and held the appellants guilty for the offences

charged.

20. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are as under:-

(i) There was tense relationship between the deceased and her

husband Kishore Pandit due to solemnization of second marriage

by the husband.

(ii) On account of having second wife, the appellant Kishore Pandit

used to physically assault and torture his first wife Rekha Devi

(deceased) frequently.

(iii) On account of torture meted with deceased, left her matrimonial

home and started residing at her parental home and instituted a

P.C.R. Case No. 233 of 1999 dated 29.05.1999 under Section 498A

of the Indian Penal Code against her husband and in-laws family

members.

(iv) In the above complaint case, the appellant Kishore Pandit moved

for a Anticipatory Bail Application vide A.B.P. No. 211 of 1999

before Sessions Judge, Deoghar wherein vide order dated

2026:JHHC:5814-DB

13

25.01.2000 on the basis of compromise arrived at between the

parties, the appellant Kishore Pandit was extended privilege of

interim anticipatory bail till 24.02.2000 and complainant Rekha

Devi (deceased) in compliance of the aforesaid order dated

25.01.2000 went to her matrimonial home along with her husband.

(v) The said provisional anticipatory bail was confirmed vide order

dated 06.05.2000.

(vi) Rekha Devi (deceased) was again treated with cruelty, tortured,

abused and assaulted at the hands of the appellant including her

husband and by her Sautan namely Jamuni Devi also brutally

assaulted the complainant and turned out from matrimonial

home while she was carrying three months’ pregnancy. Then on

27.06.2000, Rekha Devi (deceased) lodged an informatory

application before the concerned court of Judicial Magistrate,

Deoghar.

(vii)Just one day prior to above informatory application by the

complainant (deceased) dated 27.06.2000, the accused Kishore

Pandit also filed an informatory application dated 26.06.2000 that

his wife has been taken away by her father on 26.06.2000 without

his consent.

(viii) Accused Kishore Pandit also filed his rejoinder against the petition

dated 27.06.2000 filed by the complainant on 15.06.2000.

(ix) On fateful day i.e. on 15.07.2000, the complainant (deceased)

proceeded with her husband and other accused persons to join her

2026:JHHC:5814-DB

14

matrimonial home, but in the way she was done to death by

brutally assaulting her and throwing into well.

(x) The investigating Officer has categorically stated several local

witnesses have seen the deceased and accused persons in between

07:00 to 08:00 PM passing through Chand Dih Bazar.

(xi) The place of occurrence village Chand Dih Bahiyar is also come in

the way to village Sarkanda of the accused persons. The

investigating officer (P.W.13) has also stated that just after the

occurrence, he raided the house of the accused persons, but they

all were absconding.

21. The learned trial court considering the above circumstances as

pointed out by learned A.P.P., to be conclusively proved by the

prosecution and leading to only inference of guilt against the

appellants arrived at conclusion of guilt of the appellants and

convicted and sentenced them for the offences under Sections 302,

201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

22. We have given thoughtful consideration to the circumstances

relied upon by the prosecution and on the basis of discussion of

evidence as aforementioned find the following circumstances are

admitted and well proved.

(i) Deceased was married with the appellant Kishore Pandit in the

year 1988 and was blessed with a child out of their wedlock. There

was some matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife and

alleged physical and mental torture. Due to that reason, the

deceased returned to her parental home and lodged a complaint

2026:JHHC:5814-DB

15

case no. 233 of 1999 against her husband and in-laws family

members.

(ii) The appellant Kishore Pandit presented his anticipatory bail

application before learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar vide A.B.P.

No.211 of 1999 in which vide order dated 25.01.2000, he was

granted interim anticipatory bail on the basis of compromised

between the parties which was confirmed vide order dated

06.05.2000.

(iii) Further development shows that on 27.06.2000, the complainant

since deceased filed an informatory application before the

concerned court of Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar that she has been

again ill-treated, tortured and ousted from the matrimonial home

on 25.06.2000. The appellant Kishore Pandit has also lodged an

informatory application prior to his application of wife on

26.06.2000 that his wife has left her matrimonial home along with

her father and does not want to reside in his house. The regular

rejoinder to the petition dated 27.06.2000 filed by the complainant

was filed by the appellant Kishore Pandit on the alleged fateful

day of occurrence dated 15.07.2000.

(iv) It is alleged by prosecution that on the oral direction of concerned

Court of Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar in complaint case no.233 of

1999 dated 15.06.2000, the complainant/deceased again went to

her Sasural along with her husband and other appellants. The

prosecution also relies upon deposition of Investigating Officer

that some of the witnesses had seen the accused persons along

2026:JHHC:5814-DB

16

with the deceased on 15.07.2000 in between 07:00 to 08:00 P.M. at

Chand Dih Bahiyar. Thereafter, her dead body was recovered.

23. We find that above two vital aspects/circumstances of the case

has not been proved by the prosecution through any cogent and

reliable evidence. It appears from the order-sheet dated 15.07.2000

that on the same day rejoinder was filed against the petition dated

27.06.2000 of the complainant and the case was fixed for 25.07.2000

with direction to physical appearance of other accused persons

also. There is no whisper in the said order that the appellants were

directed to take away the complainant with them to matrimonial

home. There is also no whisper in the evidence of P.W.8 informant

–cum-father of the deceased that on the date fixed i.e. 15.07.2000,

the victim went to attend the court alone or accompanied with her

father or by any other family members. It also appear that not a

single witness examined by the prosecution have been able to

prove that the deceased and the accused persons were seen

together on 15.07.2000 near the place of occurrence. There is no

evidence that the deceased was assaulted by the accused persons

and they dashed her into well. The informant (P.W.8) has also not

specifically stated that on 15.07.2000, he was present in the court

along with his daughter and the deceased proceeded from court

along with accused persons as per direction of the Court. We

further finds that the Investigating Officer (P.W.13) S.I. Janardan

Kumar Singh of this case who was the then, Officer-In-Charge of

Sarkanda Police Station received information on 16.07.2000 at

2026:JHHC:5814-DB

17

about 04:00 PM through rumour that a dead body is lying into

well situated near Chand Dih Bahiyar. Accordingly, S.D. entry

was entered and he proceeded to the place of occurrence. The

prosecution has also not proved the factum of second marriage of

the appellant Kishore Pandit and no cognizance of offence under

Section 494 I.P.C. was taken by the concerned Court. P.W.8

informant-cum-father of the deceased also came to know about the

occurrence through message given from police station through

Chaukidar and also from one Ayodhya Pandit. He has also

admitted in clear terms before and after compromise his daughter

was residing in his house. He has also not corroborated the earliest

version contended in the first information report that on

15.07.2000, there was any oral direction of the Court in compliance

of which his daughter went to her matrimonial home along with

the accused persons.

24. In view of the above discussion and reasons, we find that material

link evidences in the chain of circumstances relied upon by the

prosecution are absolutely absent. The very genesis of occurrence

is that on 15.07.2000 there was oral order of the court to join the

matrimonial home, but there is no reliable evidence showing that

deceased and accused persons proceeded together from the court

or anywhere last seen together prior to occurrence. Therefore, the

appellants are involved only on the basis of suspicion and nothing

else. The learned trial court has miserably failed to appreciate the

evidence of witnesses in the light of attending circumstances. The

2026:JHHC:5814-DB

18

testimony of the witnesses has been translated verbatim thereafter

arguments have been noted and judgment of conviction has been

passed without evaluating the evidence and the circumstances

relied upon by the prosecution. Therefore, we are constrained to

set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the

appellants. Accordingly, impugned judgment and order of

conviction of appellants is hereby set aside and these appeals are

allowed.

25. Appellants are on bail, as such, they are discharged from liability

of their respective bail bonds and sureties are also discharged.

26. Pending I.As, if any stand disposed of.

27. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent to

the concerned court forthwith for information and needful.

(RongonMukhopadhyay, J.)

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi

Date:25 /02 /2026

Amar/- N.A.F.R.

Uploaded On: 26/02/2026