( 2026:JHHC:2316-DB )

Cr. A (D.B.) No.1474 of 2003

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1474 of 2003

[Against the Judgment of conviction dated 13.11.2002 and Order of

sentence dated 14.11.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Fast Track Court-I, Gumla in S.T. No.48 of 2002]

------

Kuthu Oraon, S/o- Shri Chaithu Oraon, R/o village-Mokra

Bartoli, P.S.-Raidih, District-Gumla

.... .... …. Appellant

Versus

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

------

For the Appellant : Mr. S.K. Chaturvedi, Amicus Curiae

For the Resp. State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P.

PRESENT

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

JUDGMENT

------

CAV On 05/01/2026 Pronounce On 29 /01 /2026

Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.K. Chaturvedi, learned Amicus Curiae appearing

for the appellant and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned A.P.P.

appearing for the State.

2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the sole appellant

against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence

dated 13.11.2002 and 14.11.2002 passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Gumla in S.T. No.48 of

2002, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held

( 2026:JHHC:2316-DB )

Cr. A (D.B.) No.1474 of 2003

2

guilty for the offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code

and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

Factual Matrix

3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that while the

informant was sleeping in his house on intervening night of

3/4.12.2001 at around 12:00 o’clock, he heard some sound of

weeping of a child then the informant woke up and went

towards the side of sound and came to know that Kuthu

Oraon has killed Likhu Kumhar by assaulting him with tangi

on the neck. The informant, who happens to be the brother of

the deceased, went inside the room of his brother and saw that

his dead body was lying on a chauki and the tangi was struck in

the neck of his brother and also entangled in the neck. The

informant came to know from his nephew, Krishna Kumhar

and others that while they were sleeping with Likhu

(deceased) in the varandah, they heard hulla and woke up in the

light of the dibri and saw Kuthu Oraon giving tangi blow on

the neck of the deceased and fled away. It is further alleged

that on hearing sound of weeping, several villagers assembled

at the place of occurrence. It is further alleged that the

deceased had five sons and two daughters and his wife has

already been died two years ago. It is further alleged that the

accused, Kuthu Oraon intended to marry with the eldest

( 2026:JHHC:2316-DB )

Cr. A (D.B.) No.1474 of 2003

3

daughter of the deceased against her will, in spite of

opposition by the family members, hence, she was sent to the

village Bindora for settlement of her marriage. It is further

alleged that the deceased, Likhu Kumhar went to Bindora to

meet his daughter, Kunti Kumari on Sunday and returned on

Monday night then the appellant killed the deceased on the

same night by giving tangi blow.

On the basis of above information, Raidih P.S. Case

No.61 of 2001 was registered for the offences under section 302

of Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation,

charge-sheet was submitted against the accused. The appellant

has denied the charges leveled against him. After conclusion of

the trial, the present appellant has been held guilty and

sentenced for the aforesaid offence.

Submission on behalf of the appellant

4. Learned counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned

judgment and order of conviction and sentence has

vehemently argued that none of the prosecution witnesses

have seen the occurrence. The prosecution has projected the

son of the deceased as an eye-witness of this case after tutoring

him. Except the said tutored eye-witness (P.W.5), there is no

iota of evidence against the appellant proving his involvement

in the alleged offence. The very motive for commission of the

( 2026:JHHC:2316-DB )

Cr. A (D.B.) No.1474 of 2003

4

murder that the appellant has any affair with the daughter of

the deceased has not been proved by any cogent evidence.

Learned counsel further submits that no incriminating articles

showing involvement of the appellant has been seized and

proved by the prosecution and the whole prosecution story is

based upon concocted story of love affair between the

daughter of the deceased and the present appellant. The

informant himself, who happens to be brother of the deceased

and in order to grab the property of the deceased, the

informant tutored his nephew and projected him to be an eye-

witness of the occurrence. Learned trial court has ignored the

vital aspects of the case and the very motive behind the

occurrence, which was never proved and no element of any

love-affair between Kunti Kumari and the appellant furnishing

any motive for the occurrence. Surprisingly, the said daughter

of the deceased namely, Kunti Kumari has not been examined

by the prosecution to substantiate the story of her marriage

with the appellant in forcible manner or any threatening given

to her by the appellant. It is further submitted that even if, this

motive alleged by the prosecution may be accepted, there is no

iota of evidence proving the guilt of the appellant beyond all

reasonable doubts. The suspicion howsoever strong it may be,

cannot take place of legal proof. Therefore, the impugned

( 2026:JHHC:2316-DB )

Cr. A (D.B.) No.1474 of 2003

5

judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the

appellant is simply based on conjecture and surmises and

tutored testimony of the child witness and liable to be set

aside, allowing this appeal.

Submission on behalf of the State

5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State

defending the conviction and sentence of the appellant has

submitted that learned trial court has very wisely and aptly

apprised and evaluated the prosecution evidence available on

record and found direct involvement of the appellant in

commission of murder of the deceased, Likhu Kumhar, which

suffers from no error of law and the points of argument raised

on behalf of the appellant has no legal substance. Accordingly,

this appeal has no merits and fit to be dismissed.

6. We have gone through the record of the case along with the

impugned judgment and order in the light of contentions

raised on behalf of the both side.

7. The only point for determination in this appeal is that “as to

whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction and

sentence of the appellant passed by learned trial court suffers

from any error of law calling for any interference in this

appeal?”

Analysis, Reasons and Decision:-

( 2026:JHHC:2316-DB )

Cr. A (D.B.) No.1474 of 2003

6

8. Before adverting to adjudicate the aforesaid point, we have to

take brief resume of oral as well as documentary evidence lead

by the prosecution to substantiate the charges leveled against

the appellant.

9. It appears that altogether 9 witnesses were examined by the

prosecution.

P.W.1-Dadu Kumhar is a witness of seizure list of the

blood-stained tangi. He has proved the signature of himself as

well as other witness, Chaitu Kumhar as Ext.1 and Ext.1/1.

This witness has also proved his signature on inquest report

along with other witness, Chaitu Kumhar as Ext.1/2 and Ext.

1/3 respectively. He has expressed no knowledge about

factual facts of the case.

P.W.2-Chiatu Kumhar is also a witness of the seizure

list and the inquest report and had stated nothing about the

factual facts of the case.

P.W.3-Beje Kumhar is a hearsay witness and after

hearing hullah of Krishna Kumhar, he went to his house and

came to know from Krishna Kumhar that Kuthu Oroan has

killed Likhu Kumhar by giving tangi blow on the neck. He has

further deposed that the accused was desiring to marry with

the daughter of Likhu Kumhar, namely Kunti Kumari but her

father (deceased) solemnized her marriage with one Budhu

( 2026:JHHC:2316-DB )

Cr. A (D.B.) No.1474 of 2003

7

and the deceased has returned on the same day after

solemnizing his daughter.

In his cross-examination, he admits that Kunti Kumari

was married about three days prior to the occurrence but he

has not attended the marriage. His house is situated at a

distance of 150-200 yards away from the house of the deceased.

This witness further admits that when he reached at the house

of the deceased, there was a crowd of 10-12 villagers. There is

nothing else in his evidence.

P.W.4- Jageshwar Uraon has deposed that on the next

day of the occurrence on 04.12.2001 at about 5:30-6:00 am,

when he was returning after discharging the nature’s call, he

came to know from Dadu and Ravindar that Likhu Kumhar

has been murdered by Kuthu Oraon. He also saw the dead

body of the deceased, Likhu Kumhar at his house.

In his cross-examination, this witness admits that he

was not interrogated by the police and whatever he has stated

was not disclosed by him to the police. This witness has no

knowledge about any love-affair between Kunti and Kuthu

Oraon.

P.W.5-Krishna Kumhar aged about 12 years is the son

of the deceased, Likhu Kumhar. Learned trial court after

asking some questions has found this witness to be a

( 2026:JHHC:2316-DB )

Cr. A (D.B.) No.1474 of 2003

8

competent witness. According to his evidence, on the date of

occurrence in the night, he along with Gauri Shankar, Bharat

Ram, Sishupal and sister Laxmi Bai were sleeping in a room

and his father was sleeping in the verandah (Dhaba). In the

night, he heard hullah of his father and woke up and other

persons sleeping along with him also woke up and this

witness saw that Kuthu Oraon was giving tangi blow to his

father on the neck. When he went there then Kuthu Oroan fled

away and tangi was entangled in the neck of his father. This

witness raised alarm then his uncle, Mandur Kumhar, Bede

Kumhar, Haitu Kumhar, Dadu Kumhar, Ravindra Oraon,

Jageshwar Oraon and other villagers arrived there. He has

further deposed that at the time of occurrence, dibia (Dhibri)

was lighting and the blood was spread all over the room and

his father had died. He has further deposed that the accused,

Kuthu was desiring to forcibly solemnize marriage with his

elder sister, Kunti Kumari against her will and his father was

also opposing. Therefore, his father along with Kunti went to

the village Bendor to drop his daughter at the house of Dhurv

Mahto and his father again went to the village, Bendor on

Sunday to see his daughter and returned on Monday at

evening and on the same day, when his father was sleeping

after taking dinner, this occurrence took place. The accused

( 2026:JHHC:2316-DB )

Cr. A (D.B.) No.1474 of 2003

9

was annoyed due to non-solemnization of marriage with Kunti

Kumari, hence he has killed his father.

In his cross-examination, he admits that he has stated

in his statement before the police that he has seen Kuthu

Oraon to inflict tangi blow on the neck of his father. He further

admits that his house consists of three rooms and surrounded

with varanda from four corners. He was sleeping in the north

side room in which the door was fitted and after taking dinner,

he went to sleep by closing the door from inside. His father

was sleeping towards east varanda at a distance of 30 feet. He

also admits that where this witness was sleeping along with

others, no dibri was lighting. He heard hulla of his father only

once. He also states that although he had bolted the door from

inside of his room but there was a hole in the wall and anyone

can open the door and enter into the room and thereafter went

to the varandah of his father. He has denied the suggestion of

the defence that he has not seen the occurrence rather he has

given false evidence on the tutoring by his uncle.

P.W.6-Ravindra Oraon has stated that in the next day

of the occurrence at morning, he came to know from one Bere

Kumhar that Kuthu Oraon has killed Likhu Kumhar and he

saw the dead body of the deceased. He has stated nothing else.

( 2026:JHHC:2316-DB )

Cr. A (D.B.) No.1474 of 2003

10

P.W.7-Mandur Kumhar is the informant-cum-uncle of

Krishna Kumhar, P.W.5. According to his evidence, on the date

of occurrence at about 12:30 hours in the night, he heard

weeping sound of his nephew, Krishna and niece, Gauri and

went there, he saw the dead body of his brother, Likhu lying

on a chauki in the varandah and the tangi was also entangled in

his neck. His nephew disclosed that his father has been killed

by Kuthu Oroan. This witness stated about the motive behind

the occurrence that the accused was desiring to marry with the

eldest daughter of the deceased, which he declined and his

brother solemnized marriage of his daughter to one Budhu at

village Bendor due to this, the accused was annoyed and killed

him.

In his cross-examination, he admits that Kunti Kumari

was married with Budhu about one month prior to the

occurrence but he has not participated in that marriage. He has

denied the suggestion of the defence that he has tutored his

nephew, Krishna Kumhar and has falsely implicated the

accused in this case only on the suspicion.

P.W.8-A.S.I., Tarsius Toppo is the Investigating

Officer of this case. According to his evidence on 04.12.2001, he

was posted as ASI at Raidih police station and has received

information about the murder through rumor, then village

( 2026:JHHC:2316-DB )

Cr. A (D.B.) No.1474 of 2003

11

chaukidars, Shivcharan Tudu, Ashim Kuujur and other arm

forces reached at village at about 14:40 hours and recorded the

fardbayan of Mandur Kumhar, which is marked as Ext.2 and

prepared inquest report of the deceased, Likhu Kumhar and

marked as Ext.3. He also seized blood-stained tangi and gamcha

and the seizure list was prepared in presence of witnesses,

which was marked as Ext.4. He also inspected the place of

occurrence, which is mud-made house and roofed with mud

tiles. The main door is towards the east side of the house and

was surrounded with varandahs from four corners and the

dead body was lying on a chauki. This witness has also

recorded the statement of other witness Dadu Kumhar, Chaitu

Kumar, Krishna Kumar, Ravindra Oraon and Jageshwar

Oraon and had sent the dead body of the deceased for post-

mortem. He has proved the formal FIR as Ext.5. After

completion of investigation, he has submitted the charge-sheet

against the accused for the offence under section 302 of IPC.

In his cross-examination, this witness admits that he

admits that the blood-stained tangi and gamcha were seized in

this case and have been sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for

chemical examination but the report is not available. He

further states that the informant has not disclosed before him

that he went to the place of occurrence after hearing hullah of

( 2026:JHHC:2316-DB )

Cr. A (D.B.) No.1474 of 2003

12

his nephew, Krishna and has also not disclosed about the

presence of burning dibri at the place of occurrence. This

witness further admits that P.W.5, Krishna Kumhar has also

not disclosed before him that he has seen the accused while

giving tangi blow to his father. He further admits that he has

not taken statement of Kunti or any person of her matrimonial

home. He had denied the suggestion of the defence that he has

submitted charge-sheet against the accused person without

colleting sufficient evidence.

P.W.9 Dr. Kameshwar Nath Tiwary has conducted

autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and found

following:

(i) Incised wound 4” x 1” x bone deep present over the

left lateral part of the neck just below the left ear. All the major

vessels are also cut, body of the second cervical vertebra is also

cut.

On Dissections:-

Skull bone-normal, brain and meneges are pale. Both

lungs intact and pale, both chambers of the heart empty,

stomach contains some digested food and bladder contains

about 10 cc of urine.

Inference:-

( 2026:JHHC:2316-DB )

Cr. A (D.B.) No.1474 of 2003

13

All the said injury is ante-mortem in nature caused by

sharp-cutting weapon like tangi.

Death is due to shock and hemorrhage caused by

injury No.1. Time elapsed since death from post-mortem

examination is within 12-24 hours.

Rigor mortis were preset on all four limbs. The post

mortem report is marked as Ext.6.

10. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been

adduced by the defence. In his statement recorded under

section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused had specifically denied that

he was desiring to marry with the daughter of the deceased,

Likhu Kumhar against her will. Since, the deceased has

solemnized marriage of his daughter, Kunti with another

person, due to which he was annoyed. He has denied the

commission of murder of the deceased by giving tangi blow

and pleaded innocence.

11. It appears from the impugned judgment that learned trial

court has laid much emphasis upon the fact that the

prosecution has proved beyond doubt that there was love

relationship between Kunti Kumari and the appellant.

Admittedly, the appellant was belonging to a tribal

community, hence, the deceased was not convinced with such

type of marriage and had solemnized marriage of his daughter

( 2026:JHHC:2316-DB )

Cr. A (D.B.) No.1474 of 2003

14

with another person, due to this reason, the appellant got

annoyed and killed the deceased. Learned trial court has also

relied upon the evidence of P.W.-5, who has seen the

occurrence in the light of dibri.

12. We have given thoughtful consideration to overall aspects of

the case and also considered the reasons recorded by learned

trial court while arriving at conclusion of guilt of the appellant.

We find that the claim of P.W.5 as an eye-witness of the

occurrence is not tenable at all. He has given contradictory

statement regarding seeing the accused while inflicting tangi

blow on the neck of the deceased. Admittedly, he was sleeping

with 4-5 family members and one single sound of alarm raised

by his father, he rushed towards dhaba and found his father in

injured condition. There is no reasonable explanation from this

witness as to how the accused got managed to enter into the

house while he closed the door from inside of his room. His

source of identification of the accused in the night is also bleak.

The main motive behind the occurrence has also not been

proved by any cogent and reliable evidence. The daughter of

the deceased, Kunti Kumari or her husband or any other in-

laws’ family members were admittedly not interrogated by the

investigating officer and have not been examined to prove the

very genesis/motive of the case. The informant, who was

( 2026:JHHC:2316-DB )

Cr. A (D.B.) No.1474 of 2003

15

quite instrumental in this case, is none else but the brother of

the deceased. According to the informant, the deceased has

solemnized marriage of his eldest daughter about one month

prior to the occurrence but he did not participate in the

marriage. On the other hand, P.W.5, Krishna Kumhar, who

happens to be brother of Kunti Kumari and other witnesses of

the facts states that only about three days prior to the

occurrence, Kunti was married with Budhu. The prosecution

has also failed to bring any incident of threatening given by the

appellant to the deceased or his family members. No such

recourse was taken before the village panchyat also. Therefore,

the entire story projected by the prosecution does not appear

to be trustworthy and shrouded with doubt. Suppressing the

real material facts, the prosecution has projected a story about

threatening given by the appellant to the deceased for

solemnizing marriage of his daughter with another person,

this core motive behind the occurrence might have been

substantiated by the best evidence of Kunti Kumari but she has

been kept behind the curtain.

13. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances, we are of the

firm view that learned trial court has wrongly placed reliance

upon the testimony of P.W.5 as an eye-witness of the

occurrence and the surrounding circumstances projected by

( 2026:JHHC:2316-DB )

Cr. A (D.B.) No.1474 of 2003

16

the prosecution regarding motive behind the occurrence. In

absence of concrete evidence to prove the above aspects of the

case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant, we

are unable to sustain the conviction of the appellant, which

suffers from serious error of law. Therefore, we set aside the

impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence

dated 13.11.2002 and 14.11.2002 passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Gumla in S.T. No.48 of 2002

and this appeal is allowed.

14. The appellant is on bail, hence, he is discharged from liability

of bail bond. The sureties are also discharged.

15. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly.

16. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be

sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.

17. We take this opportunity to appreciate the assistance rendered

by Mr. S.K. Chaturvedi, learned Amicus Curiae and direct the

Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee to

process fees of Rs.7,500/-(Rs. Seven Thousand and Five

Hundred) to Mr. S.K. Chaturvedi within a period of four

weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this

order.

( 2026:JHHC:2316-DB )

Cr. A (D.B.) No.1474 of 2003

17

18. Office is directed to ensure that a copy of this order be served

to Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee

for processing the fees to learned Amicus Curiae.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi

Date: 29 /01 /2026

Pappu/- N.A.F.R.

Uploaded On 30/01/2026