2026:JHHC:23470-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

--------

Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1692 of 2017

------

(Against the judgment of conviction dated 4

th April, 2017 and

order of sentence dated 7

th April, 2017, passed by learned

Sessions Judge, Gumla in Sessions Trial No.356 of 2014)

------

Lalu Ram @ Laloo Ram, S/o Late Jagdeo Ram, Village-Pirha

Chattam, Bhairo Toli, P.O. & P.S.-Palkot, District-Gumla

… …. Appellant

Versus

State of Jharkhand ….. Respondent

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

…..

For the Appellant : Mr. Tarun Kumar Mahato, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, Spl. P.P

…..

C.A.V./Reserved on 14.07.2026 Pronounced on 06/08/2026

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.:

Prayer:

1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2)

of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment

of conviction dated 4

th April, 2017 and order of sentence

dated 7

th April, 2017, passed by learned Sessions Judge,

Gumla in Sessions Trial No.356 of 2014, by which the

appellant has been convicted for the offence under

Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in

default of payment of fine S.I. for 3 months and out of

Rs. 25,000/-, Rs. 20,000/- to be paid to the son of

deceased, P.W.-5 Ghanshyam Ram.

2

Prosecution Case:

2. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the

Fardbayan of the informant Fani Kumar Ram (P.W. -2)

recorded on 24.08.2014 at 10:45 hrs., by Sri R.K. Tiwari,

the Officer-in-Charge of Palkot police Station, District-

Gumla .

3. Informant Fani Kumar Ram (P.W.-2) has stated in his

Fard-beyan that on 23.08.2014, when he was in his

school, he got an information that his cousin brother

Ramprit Ram (deceased) was killed with an axe by

another cousin brother Lalu Ram (appellant herein). On

receiving such information, he came to the place of

occurrence and saw the dead body of Ramprit Ram lying

in his house and his neck was cut and blood was oozing

out.

4. Informant has further stated that deceased was residing

in his house along with his mother Jitni Devi, aged about

80 years and his son Ghanshyam Ram (P.W.-5) aged

about 15 years and at that time, only the mother of the

deceased was present in the house and his son had gone

to graze the cattle.

5. Informant further stated that on 23.08.2014, at about

11 am, the accused/appellant took an axe from his

house and went to the house of deceased Ramprit Ram.

At that time deceased was sleeping in his house and the

3

accused/appellant gave axe blow over the neck of the

deceased, in the presence of his mother as a result of

which the deceased died at the place of occurrence itself.

The occurrence was seen by the mother of the deceased

and when accused/appellant was running away with an

axe, he was seen by Raju Ram (P.W.-12) and Chandrika

Ram (P.W. 1). The reason for occurrence is that the

accused/appellant intended to grab the land of the

deceased.

6. On the Fardbeyan of informant, Palkot P.S. Case No.

52/2014 dated 24.08.2014 was registered for the

offences under Section 302 of IPC.

7. After investigation Police submitted charge-sheet against

the accused /appellant for the offences under Section

302 of IPC.

8. The learned trial court framed charge against the

accused/appellant under Section 302 of IPC which was

read over and explained to him to which he pleaded not

guilty and claimed to be tried.

9. In course of trial, the prosecution had examined

altogether 12 witnesses out of whom P.W.-2 Fani Kumar

Ram, is the informant of the case; P.W.-1 Chandrika

Ram, P.W.-3 Mahabir Ram; P.W.-4 Ram Prasad Ram;

P.W.-5 Ghanshayam Ram, who is the son of the

deceased; P.W.-6 Sartho Ram; P.W.-7 Narayan Ram;

4

P.W.-8 Dr. Sourav Prasad, who conducted post-mortem;

P.W.-9 Bigu Ram, who is the Investigating Officer of the

case; P.W.-10 and P.W.-11 both are same person namely

ASI Purustam Tiwary and P.W.-12 is Raju Ram.

10. The defence case is the total denial of the involvement

of the accused in the case.

11. The trial Court, after recording the evidence of

witnesses, examination-in-chief and cross-examination,

recorded the statement of the accused and found the

charges levelled against the appellant proved beyond all

reasonable doubts.

12. Accordingly, the appellant had been found guilty and

convicted, as stated above, which is the subject matter of

instant appeal.

Submission on behalf of appellant:

13. Mr. Tarun Kumar Mahato, learned counsel appearing

for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment of

conviction and order of se ntence on the following

grounds.

14. Submission has been made that p rosecution has

miserably failed in proving the charge leveled against the

appellant and learned trial court has committed error of

law in evaluating and analyzing the evidence in coming to

the conclusion.

5

15. Further submission has been made that the impugned

judgment of conviction and order of sentence are

absolutely against the weight of evidence available on

record and as such are unsustainable and liable to be set

aside.

16. The learned trial court did not appreciate the evidence

available on record properly, legally and in its correct

perspective and the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence has been passed without taking into

consideration the evidence of P.Ws recorded in cross-

examination and apparently on the basis of evidence

recorded during their examination-in-chief.

17. It is a case where the alleged sole eye witness i.e.

mother of the deceased, to the occurrence has not been

examined and only on the basis of surmises and

conjectures, the appellant has been convicted and

sentenced for life imprisonment.

18. All the witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution

are hearsay witness and so reliance cannot be placed

upon them to convict the appellant for life.

19. Further submission has been made that the judgment

of conviction is based on circumstantial evidence but

admittedly there is no complete chain to prove the case of

murder by the appellant to the deceased.

6

20. Learned counsel for the appellant, in the backdrop of

aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence since is not based upon

cogent evidence and as such it cannot be said that the

prosecution has been able to prove the charge beyond all

reasonable doubt.

Submission of the learned Spl. P.P. for the State:

21. Per Contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor

appearing on behalf of State has defended the impugned

judgment of conviction and order of sentence taking the

ground that the impugned judgment has been passed

based upon the testimony of witness es who have

supported the prosecution version.

22. Submission has been made that it has come in the

evidence of the witnesses that witnesses saw that after

killing the deceased, accused was running away with

tangi in his hand from the house of the deceased. Even in

the confessional statement the accused admitted that he

killed the deceased with tangi and on his information the

tangi was recovered from his house and to that extent the

confession of the appellant is admissible in law. It has

further been submitted that it is not a case of hearsay

witness rather the prosecution has succeeded in

establishing the charge by proving the circumstantial

evidence.

7

23. Learned State counsel based upon the aforesaid

ground has submitted that the prosecution has been able

to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable

doubt.

Analysis

24. We have heard learned counsel for the parties,

perused the documents available on record and the

testimony of witnesses as also the finding recorded by

learned trial Court in the impugned order.

25. This Court, before appreciating t he argument

advanced on behalf of the parties as also the legality and

propriety of the impugned judgment, deems it fit and

proper to refer the testimonies of the prosecution

witnesses.

26. P.W.-2 Fani Kumar Ram, is the informant of the case

and cousin brother of the deceased. Informant has stated

in his evidence that on 23rd August, 2014, at about 11

a.m, Ramprit Ram was killed and at that time, he was in

Karatoli School. At about 11.30 a.m, son of Ram Vilas

Ram came at his school and informed that Lalu Ram had

killed Ramprit Ram. Thereafter, he went to the house of

Ramprit Ram and saw the dead body of Ramprit Ram

was laying there and old mother of Ramprit Ram, namely

Jitni Devi was present there. Jitni Devi told that, after

taking meal, Ramprit Ram was sleepin g, in the

8

meantime, accused Lalu Ram armed with tangi came

there and cut Ramprit Ram. He further deposed that

villagers also assembled there and on query, Chandrika

Ram (P.W.-1) and Raju Ram (P.W.-12) told him that they

saw Lalu Ram was coming out from the house of Ramprit

Ram with tangi in his hand.

27. Informant further stated that he saw the dead body of

Ramprit Ram and found the neck was cut and the blood

was oozing from the neck. Reason behind the occurrence,

was land disputes between Ramprit Ram and Lalu Ram

and prior to this, on one two occasions also there was a

quarrel between the two. On 24.08.2014 at about 10

a.m, police came and recorded his Fardbeyan, upon

which he put his signature and same is marked as Ext.-

1.

28. Informant in his cross-examination, stated that the

distance from the place of occurrence to his school is

about 3 k.m. and he had reached at the place of

occurrence at about 12 noon, at that time Jitni Devi was

sitting on the Verandah. They had not gone to the police

station on the same day (i.e. 23.08.2014) and on the next

day on 24.08.2014, they had gone to the police station.

29. P.W.-1 Chandrika Ram, had stated in his evidence

that about 1 year 4 months ago, at about 11 a.m,

Ramprit Ram was killed and at that time he was in his

9

house. The mother of deceased was crying then on

hearing the same, he went to the house of deceased and

saw Lalu Ram was coming out from the house of Ramprit

Ram after killing him and the tangi stained with blood

was in his hand. Thereafter, he entered into the house

and saw the dead body and found there was a cut injury

upon the neck and blood was oozing out. At that time,

mother of Ramprit Ram, Jitni Devi was in the house and

she said that Lalu Ram had killed her son. Thereafter, on

next day police came. Due to land dispute Lalu had killed

Ramprit Ram. He also deposed that Raju Ram was also

with him. Jitni Devi is not in a position to walk due to

her old age.

30. In his cross-examination, P.W.-1 stated that his house

is situated in front of the house of the deceased and at

the time of occurrence, he was in front of the house of

the deceased. When, he went to the house of Ramprit

Ram at that time, he had died.

31. P.W.-3 Mahabir Ram, has stated in his evidence that

he had signed on the arrest memo of Lalu Ram and his

signature on the arrest memo was marked as Ext.-2. He

also deposed that he had put his signature upon seizure

list of tangi, which was recovered from the house of

accused Lalu Ram and his signature on the seizure list

was marked as Ext.-2/1.

10

32. P.W.-4 Ram Prasad Ram, had stated in his evidence

that one year ago Ramprit Ram was killed and at that

time, he was in his village. On hearing halla, he went to

the house of Ramprit and saw his dead body. He saw the

dead body and there was injury upon his head. P.W.-4

further stated that he had signed on the inquest report

and his signature on the inquest report was marked as

Ext.-3.

33. P.W.-5 Ghanshayam Ram, is the son of the deceased.

He had stated in his evidence that Lalu Ram had killed

his father with tangi and he came to know this from his

grandmother, who saw the occurrence. Raju Ram and

Chandrika Ram, saw Lalu fleeing away with tangi in his

hand. In his cross-examination, he stated that at the

time of occurrence, he had gone to graze the cattle.

34. P.W.-6 Sartho Ram, had stated in his evidence that

Lalu Ram had killed Ramprit Ram with tangi and at that

time, he was in his house. His house is situated in front

of the house of accused Lalu Ram. He further deposed

that he saw the dead body and there was land dispute in

between the accused Lalu Ram and Ramprit Ram.

35. P.W.-7 Narayan Ram, is another seizure list witness to

the recovery of axe. He had proved his signature on the

seizure list which was marked as Ext.-2/2. In his cross-

11

examination, he stated that he put his signature on the

saying of police.

36. P.W.-8 Dr. Sourav Prasad, had conducted post -

mortem on the dead body of the deceased. He had stated

in his evidence that on 24th August 2014, he was posted

as Medical Officer at Sadar hospital, Gumla and on the

same day, he conducted post-mortem examination upon

dead body of Ramprit Ram 50 years male S/O Late

Tejpal Ram and found the following injures: -

1. Incised wound 6"X2" extending from one sternomastoid to

another sternomastoid over neck. All major vessels were cut

through and through.

2. Incised wound 2"X2" over right frontal region skin deep.

Cause of death due to shock and hemorrhage.

Time since death greater than 24 hours. Injury caused

by sharp cutting instrument. He has proved his

signature upon the post-mortem report which is marked

Ext.-4. He further deposed that such type of injury may

also be caused by tangi.

37. P.W.-9 Bigu Ram, is the Investigating Officer of the

case. He had stated in his evidence that on 24.08.2014,

he was posted as S.I. at Palkot Police Station. On that

day, he received information that someone was killed in

Pihra Chattan Karotoli and thereafter, a sanha was

instituted by the then Officer-in-Charge Ramakant Tiwari

12

and the Officer-in-Charge along with S.I Anil Kumar and

other arms force member went there. The inquest report

was prepared by S.I Anil Kumar Nayak which bears his

signature. The inquest report was marked as Ext.-3/1.

The statement of the informant was recorded by the

Officer-in-Charge, which bears the signature of informant

Fani Kumar Ram and endorsement in English made by

the then Officer-in-Charge. Fardbeyan was marked as

Ext.-1/1.

38. Investigating Officer further stated that he had

inspected the place of occurrence, which is the house of

deceased Ramprit Ram, situated at Dipatoli Pirha

Chattan Karotoli, the main door of house was towards

southern and there were two khaprail room and in the

Northen side of room, dead body of Ramprit Ram was

found.

39. He raided the house of accused Lalu Ram and arrested

him in presence of two witnesses namely, Narayan Ram

and Mahabir Ram and memo of arrest was prepared by

Anil Nayak, which bears his signature and also signature

of Narayan and Mahabir Ram and Lalu Ram, marked as

Ext.-5. Thereafter, confessional statement of accused was

recorded by Anil Nayak, which bears the signature of Anil

Nayak as well as his signature and signature of accused

Lalu Ram. The Confessional statement was marked as

13

Ext.-6. Then, in presence of the villagers Mahabir Ram,

Narayan Ram, house of the accused Lalu Ram was

searched and a tangi was recovered from his house and

seizure list of it was prepared, which bears his signature

as well as signature of Mahabir Ram and Narayan Ram,

marked as Ext.-7.

40. Investigating Officer in his cross-examination stated

that he received information on 24.08.2014 and proceed

towards the occurrence at about 8.30 a.m. and reached

at the place of occurrence at about 10.40 a.m . The

Officer-in- charge had handed over the investigation to

him. He had not seized the blood spot and did not get

forensic examination of the axe.

41. PW-10 and PW-11 is the same person namely ASI

Purustam Tiwary. When he was examined as PW -10, he

produced death certificate of Jitni Devi (mother of the

deceased), which was marked as Ext. -8, according to

which Jitni Devi died on 06.04.16. When he was

examined as PW-11, he produced an axe, before the

court, which was marked as material Ext.-l.

42. P.W.-12 Raju Ram, had stated in his evidence that

occurrence took place about two years seven months ago,

at about 10/11 a.m. and at that time, he had gone to his

field. When he was on way to his house, from the field,

then he met with Chandrika Ram (PW -1) and thereafter,

14

when they reached near the house of Ramprit Ram ,

heard the alarm raised by Ramprit's mother. He saw

accused Lalu Ram was coming out from the house of

Ramprit Ram and he was fleeing away with tangi in his

hand. He went to the house of Ramprit Ram and saw the

dead body of Ramprit Ram and he also saw blood and

injury upon the neck of the Ramprit Ram, which was

caused by tangi. Ramprit's mother told him that Lalu

Ram had killed his son and fled away. He further stated

that since, area was affected with MCC, therefore, case

was instituted on the next day.

43. In his cross-examination, he stated that he had not

seen the occurrence. When he was on way to his house

he met with Chandrika Ram and thereafter, he met Lalu,

but he had no talk with Lalu.

44. Before adverting into merit of the case it would be apt

to note down the admitted and undisputed facts which

are as follows:

(i) It stands established on record that the death of the

deceased was homicidal in nature. This fact is not

in dispute and is borne out from the medical

evidence adduced.

(ii) The alleged sole eye-witness, namely the mother of

the deceased has not been examined before the

Court.

15

(iii) The alleged weapon of offence, i.e. tangi, though

stated to have been seized from the house of the

appellant, has not been forwarded for forensic

examination.

45. This Court, on the basis of aforesaid factual aspect

vis-à-vis argument advanced on behalf of parties, is now

proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of

impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence

by formulating following questions to be answered by this

Court:

i. Whether the long interval in lodging the FIR by the

informant has been reasonably explained by the

prosecution?

ii. Whether there is vital contradiction in the testimony

of PW-1 and PW-12, who have been projected by

the prosecution to have witnessed the appellant,

coming out from the house of the deceased,

carrying axe in his hand?

iii. Whether the alleged recovery of axe vide seizure

list Ext7, said to be recovered from the house of the

appellant, can be treated as cogent evidence to

prove the culpability of the appellant in the alleged

commission of crime?

Re: Issue No.(i)

46. The first issue is whether the long interval in lodging

the FIR by the informant has been reasonably explained

by the prosecution?

47. At this juncture, it would be pertinent to see the

judgments on the issue of prompt lodging of the FIR.

16

Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Thulia Kali v. State of

T.N., (1972) 3 SCC 393, on the issue of prompt lodging

of FIR had laid down that the object of insisting upon

prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of

commission of an offence is to obtain early information

regarding the circumstances in which the crime was

committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part

played by them as well as the names of eyewitnesses

present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the

first information report quite often results in

embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On

account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the

advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the

introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or

concocted story as a result of deliberati on and

consultation. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in

lodging of the first information report should be

satisfactorily explained. Paragraph-12 of this judgment is

quoted herein below-

“12. It is in the evidence of Valanjiaraju that the house of

Muthuswami is at a distance of three furlongs from the

village of Valanjiaraju. Police Station Valavanthi is also at

a distance of three furlongs from the house of

Muthuswami. Assuming that Muthuswami PW was not

found at his house till 10.30 p.m. on March 12, 1970, by

Valanjiaraju, it is not clear as to why no report was

lodged by Valanjiaraju at the police station. It is, in our

opinion, most difficult to believe that even though the

17

accused had been seen at 2 p.m. committing the murder

of Madhandi deceased and a large number of villagers

had been told about it soon thereafter, no report about the

occurrence could be lodged till the following day. The

police station was less than two miles from the village of

Valanjiaraju and Kopia and their failure to make a report

to the police till the following day would tend to show that

none of them had witnessed the occurrence. It seems

likely, as has been stated on behalf of the accused, that

the villagers came to know of the death of Madhandi

deceased on the evening of March 12, 1970. They did not

then know about the actual assailant of the deceased,

and on the following day, their suspicion fell on the

accused and accordingly they involved him in this case.

First information report in a criminal case is an extremely

vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of

corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The

importance of the above report can hardly be

overestimated from the standpoint of the accused. The

object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the

police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain

early information regarding the circumstances in which

the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits

and the part played by them as well as the names of

eyewitnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in

lodging the first information report quite often results in

embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On

account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the

advantage of spontaneity, danger creep s in of the

introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or

concocted story as a result of deliberation and

consultation. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in

the lodging of the first information report should be

satisfactorily explained. In the present case, Kopia,

daughter-in-law of Madhandi deceased, according to the

prosecution case, was present when the accused made

murderous assault on the deceased. Valanjiaraju, step-

son of the deceased, is also alleged to have arrived near

18

the scene of occurrence on being told by Kopia. Neither of

them, nor any other villager, who is stated to have been

told about the occurrence by Valanjiaraju and Kopia,

made any report at the police station for more than 20

hours after the occurrence, even though the police station

is only two miles from the place of occurrence. The said

circumstance, in our opinion, would raise considerable

doubt regarding the veracity of the evidence of those two

witnesses and point to an infirmity in that evidence as

would render it unsafe to base the conviction of the

accused-appellant upon it.”

(emphasis supplied)

48. Further, in case of Girish Yadav v. State of M.P.,

(1996) 8 SCC 186, Hon’ble Apex Court laid down that

once it is found that the FIR is promptly lodged, it must

be held that the contents of the FIR would reflect the

first-hand account of what had actually happened on the

spot and who were responsible for the offence in

question.Paragraph-10 of this judgment is quoted herein

below-

“10. Once it is found that the FIR was promptly lodged after

the incident by witness PW 2 Indu Tiwari, and that set in

motion the police machinery which started investigation on the

spot immediately thereafter, it must be held that the contents

of the FIR would reflect the first hand account of what had

actually happened on the spot and who were responsible for

the offence in question. In this connection learned counsel for

the respondent rightly invited our attention to a decision of

this Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Surja Ram [1995

Supp (3) SCC 419 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 937 : AIR 1995 SC 2413]

wherein M.K. Mukherjee, J., speaking for this Court observed

that the FIR which was promptly lodged and which contained

detailed outline of the prosecution case, clearly corroborates

eyewitness account.”

19

49. Again, in case of Jai Prakash Singh v. State of

Bihar, (2012) 4 SCC 379, Hon’ble Apex Court laid down

that the FIR in a criminal case is a vital and valuable

piece of evidence though may not be substantive piece of

evidence. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of

the FIR in respect of the commission of an offence is to

obtain early information regarding the circumstances in

which the crime was committed, the names of the actual

culprits and the part played by them as well as the

names of the eye-witnesses present at the scene of

occurrence. If there is a delay in lodging the FIR, it loses

the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the

introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or

concocted story as a result of large number of

consultations/deliberations. Undoubtedly, the

promptness in lodging the FIR is an assurance regarding

truth of the informant's version. A promptly lodged FIR

reflects the first-hand account of what has actually

happened, and who was responsible for the o ffence in

question. Paragraph-12 of this judgment is quoted herein

below-

“12. The FIR in a criminal case is a vital and valuable piece of

evidence though may not be substantive piece of evidence.

The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR in

respect of the commission of an offence is to obtain early

information regarding the circumstances in which the crime

20

was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part

played by them as well as the names of the eye-witnesses

present at the scene of occurrence. If there is a delay in

lodging the FIR, it loses the advantage of spontaneity, danger

creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated

account or concocted story as a result of large number of

consultations/deliberations. Undoubtedly, the promptness in

lodging the FIR is an assurance regarding truth of the

informant's version. A promptly lodged FIR reflects the first

hand account of what has actually happened, and who was

responsible for the offence in question. (Vide Thulia Kali v.

State of T.N. [(1972) 3 SCC 393 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 543 : AIR

1973 SC 501] , State of Punjab v. Surja Ram [1995 Supp (3)

SCC 419 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 937 : AIR 1995 SC 2413] , Girish

Yadav v. State of M.P. [(1996) 8 SCC 186 : 1996 SCC (Cri)

552] and Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat

[(2011) 10 SCC 158 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 218 : AIR 2012 SC

37])”

50. Thus, from the aforesaid proposition of law it is

evident that if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, it loses

the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the

introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or

concocted story as a result of large number of

consultations/deliberations. It is, therefore, essential

that the delay in the lodging of the first information

report should be satisfactorily explained.

51. In the case in hand, Fani Kumar Ram (P.W.-2), is the

informant of the case. He is the cousin brother of the

deceased Ramprit Ram. In his examination-in-chief,

informant had stated that Ramprit Ram (deceased) was

murdered at 11 a.m., on 23

rd August, 2014 and he had

21

received the information of murder of Ramprit Ram at

11.30 am, when he was at school. In his cross -

examination, informant had stated that he had reached

at the place of occurrence at 12 O’clock, in the noon.

52. The FIR was registered on the next day i.e. on 24

th

August, 2014.

53. Investigating Officer P.W-9, had stated in his

examination-in-chief that on 24.08.2014, in the morning

at 8 a.m., information was received in rumor that

someone was killed in village Pihra Chattan, Karotoli,

and thereafter, a sanha was instituted by the then

Officer-in-Charge Ramakant Tiwari and the Officer -in-

Charge along with S.I Anil Kumar and other arms force

member went there.

54. Hence, question arises that when Ramprit Ram

(deceased) was murdered at 11 a.m., on 2 3

rd August,

2014, and informant had received the information of

murder of Ramprit Ram, after half an hour at 11.30 am,

on the same day and thereafter, at 12 O’ çlock, in the

noon, informant had reached at the place of occurrence,

then, why the informant, withheld the information of

murder his cousin brother from the police and did not

inform at the police station about the occurrence on

the same day i.e. on 23 August, 2014 itself and that too

when informant is para teacher i.e. literate person.

22

55. Further, informant in his cross-examination had

stated the distance of police station from his house is 22

Km and hence, hence, he did not inform about the

occurrence on the same day i.e. on 23

rd August, 2014

and on the next day i.e. on 24 August, 2014, he informed

about the occurrence at the police station.

56. But this explanation given by the informant cannot be

accepted due the reason that in the FIR distance of police

station to the place of occurrence is noted as 15 km.

Even if according to the informant, police station was 22

km away from the place of occurrence, then also

informant had ample time to inform the police as it is the

own admission of the informant that he came to know

about the murder of the deceased at about 11.30 am, on

23 August, 2014 and thereafter, at 12 O’ çlock, in the

noon, he had reached at the place of occurrence. Hence,

after reaching to the place of occurrence at 12 O’ çlock,

in the noon, on 23

rd August, 2014, informant did not

take any steps to inform to the police though informant

had plenty time after 12 O’ çlock, in the noon, on 23

rd

August, 2014, to inform about the occurrence at the

police station. It is also not the case of the prosecution

that incident occurred at night, so informant was not

able to inform at the police station.

23

57. Thus, the prosecution has failed to explain

satisfactorily the delay in lodging the FIR, which raises

doubt in the case of the prosecution.

58. Accordingly, issue no.(i) has been answered.

Re: Issue no.(ii)

59. The second issue is whether there is vital

contradiction in the testimony of PW-1 and PW-12, who

have been projected by the prosecution to have witnessed

the appellant, coming out from the house of the

deceased, carrying axe in his hand?

60. Both PW-1 and PW-12, in their testimony had deposed

that they had seen the appellant coming out from the

house of the Ramprit Ram (deceased) and at that time

appellant had axe in his hand. The learned Trial Court

had also relied on the testimony of the PW-1 and PW-2,

in convicting the appellant.

61. To answer the instant issue, this court has gone

through the testimony of PW-1 and PW-12. PW-12 in his

examination-in-chief had stated that on the day of

occurrence he had gone to his field and when he was

returning to his home, from the field, then he met with

Chandrika Ram (PW-1) and then, when both reached

near the house of Ramprit Ram (deceased), they heard

alarm of Ramprit’s mother. In his cross-examination,

also PW-12 reiterated that on the day of occurrence at

24

about 7 a.m., in the morning he had gone to dig his filed

and he was returning home from the field at about 10

a.m., and on the way he met Chandrika Ram (PW-1).

62. Hence, it is the own admission of PW-12 that on the

day and time of occurrence, PW-1 was along with PW-12.

63. But, contrary to that PW-1, in his examination-in-chief

had stated that on the day of occurrence, he was at his

home.

64. So, vital contradiction has emerged in the testimony of

PW-1 and PW-12 as PW-1 had stated in his evidence that

at the time of occurrence, he was at his home, but,

contrary to that in the evidence PW-12 had admitted that

at the time of occurrence, PW-1 had met him on the way

and both were together.

65. Again, on going through the evidence PW -12, this

court finds one more contradiction appearing in the

testimony of PW-12. PW-12 had stated in his cross-

examination that he firstly met with Chandrika Ram

(PW-1) and thereafter, he met Lalu (appellant herein).

66. Hence, when it is specific testimony of PW-12 that

after meeting Chandrika Ram (PW-1), he met Lalu

(appellant herein) on the way, then, question arises when

PW-12 had met the appellant on the way, then, how it

was possible that both PW-1 and PW-12 had seen the

25

appellant coming out from the house of the Ramprit

Ram(deceased) and that too carrying axe in his hand.

67. At this juncture, it needs to refer herein the settled

position of law that not every discrepancy or

contradiction matters for assessing the reliability and

credibility of a witness, unless the discrepancies and

contradictions are so material that it destroys the

substratum of the prosecution case.

68. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment

rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Sunil

Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) v. State of

Maharashtra, (2010) 13 SCC 657 , wherein Apex court

has dealt material contradiction, which is quoted for

ready reference-

“30. While appreciating the evidence, the court has to take

into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions

had been of such magnitude that they may materially

affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies,

embellishments or improvements on trivial matters without

effecting the core of the prosecution case should not be

made a ground to reject the evidence in its entirety. The

trial court, after going through the entire evidence, must

form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and

the appellate court in normal course would not be justified

in reviewing the same again without justifiable reasons.

(Vide State v. Saravanan1.)

31. Where the omission(s) amount to a contradiction,

creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of a

witness and the other witness also makes material

improvements before the court in order to make the

26

evidence acceptable, it cannot be safe to rely upon such

evidence. (Vide State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Singh2.)

32. The discrepancies in the evidence of eyewitnesses, if

found to be not minor in nature, may be a ground for

disbelieving and discrediting their evidence. In such

circumstances, witnesses may not inspire confidence and

if their evidence is found to be in conflict and contradiction

with other evidence or with the statement already

recorded, in such a case it cannot be held that the

prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

(Vide Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.3)

33. In case, the complainant in the FIR or the witness in

his statement under Section 161 CrPC, has not disclosed

certain facts but meets the prosecution case first time

before the court, such version lacks credence and is liable

to be discarded. (Vide State v. Sait4.)

34. In State of Rajasthan v. Kalki5, while dealing with this

issue, this Court observed as under : (SCC p. 754, para 8)

“8. … In the depositions of witnesses there are always

normal discrepancies however honest and truthful they

may be. These discrepancies are due to normal errors of

observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time,

due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the

time of the occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies

are those which are not normal, and not expected of a

normal person.”

35. The courts have to label the category to which a

discrepancy belongs. While normal discrepancies do not

corrode the credibility of a party’s case, material

discrepancies do so. (See Syed Ibrahim v. State of A.P.6

and Arumugam v. State7.)

36. In Bihari Nath Goswami v. Shiv Kumar Singh8 this

Court examined the issue and held: (SCC p. 192, para 9)

“9. Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle.

But it can be one of the factors to test the credibility of the

prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a

crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility.”

27

37. While deciding such a case, the court has to apply the

aforesaid tests. Mere marginal variations in the

statements cannot be dubbed as improvements as the

same may be elaborations of the statement made by the

witness earlier. The omissions which amount to

contradictions in material particulars i.e. go to the root of

the case/materially affect the trial or core of the

prosecution case, render the testimony of the witness

liable to be discredited.”

69. Likewise, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Shyamal Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, reported in

(2012) 7 SCC 646, wherein, paragraphs-46, it has been

held as under:

“46. Then, it was argued that there are certain

discrepancies and contradictions in the statement of

the prosecution witnesses inasmuch as these

witnesses have given different timing as to when they

had seen the scuffling and strangulation of the

deceased by the accused. It is true that there is some

variation in the timing given by PW 8, PW 17 and PW

19. Similarly, there is some variation in the statement

of PW 7, PW 9 and PW 11. Certain variations are also

pointed out in the statements of PW 2, PW 4 and PW 6

as to the motive of the accused for commission of the

crime. Undoubtedly, some minor discrepancies or

variations are traceable in the statements of these

witnesses. But what the Court has to see is whether

these variations are material and affect the case of the

prosecution substantially. Every variation may not be

enough to adversely affect the case of the prosecution.

70. Thus, from the aforesaid proposition of law it is

evident that minor discrepancies, embellishments and

contradictions in the evidence of the eyewitness do not

destroy the essential fabric of the prosecution case, the

28

core of which remains unaffected. But at the same time,

it is equally settled that the discrepancies which go to the

root of the matter and shake the basic version of the

witnesses that can be annexed with due importance.

71. Now, reverting back to the fact of the present case,

this court finds that vital contradictions have cropped up

in the prosecution case due to contradiction in the

testimony of PW-12 vis-à-vis PW-1. Firstly, as PW-1 had

stated in his evidence that at the time of occurrence, he

was at his home, but, contrary to that in the evidence

PW-12 had admitted that at the time of occurrence, PW-1

had met him on the way and both were together.

Secondly, that when PW-12 had specifically deposed that

he met Lalu (appellant herein) on the way, then, how it

was possible that both PW-1 and PW-12 had seen the

appellant coming out from the house of the Ramprit

Ram(deceased) and that too carrying axe in his hand.

72. So, this court is of the view that evidence of PW-1 and

PW-12 is self-contradictory as to witnessing the appellant

coming out from the house of the Ramprit Ram(deceased)

carrying axe in his hand.

73. Accordingly, issue no.(ii) is hereby answered.

Re: Issue no.(iii)

74. The third issue is whether the alleged recovery of axe

vide seizure list Ext.-7, said to be recovered from the

29

house of the appellant, can be treated as cogent evidence

to prove the culpability of the appellant in the alleged

commission of crime?

75. In the case in hand, prosecution case is that deceased

was murdered by giving axe blow on the neck of the

deceased and the axe allegedly used in the commission of

the crime was recovered from the ho use of the

accused/appellant on the confessional statement made

by the accused before the police.

76. In the present case PW-3 and PW-7 are the seizure list

witnesses and both have supported the recovery of axe

from the house of the appellant.

77. But, seizure list witness PW-3 had stated in his

evidence that in the village, in almost all the houses, axe

is kept. Likewise, PW-12 had also stated in his evidence

that his village is surrounded by the forest and mountain

and everybody keeps axe in their house.

78. Further, Investigating Office P.W.-9, in his cross-

examination had stated that he did not get the forensic

examination of the axe.

79. At this juncture, it needs to refer herein that the non-

sending of a seized weapon for forensic examination in

an alleged crime can significantly impact the

prosecution's case. The prosecution's case in a murder

trial, where the seized weapon (herein tangi) has not been

30

subjected to forensic examination and there are no

eyewitnesses to the occurrence, faces substantial legal

challenges. While the absence of either direct evidence or

forensic corroboration is not necessarily fatal on its own,

their combined absence significantly elevates the burden

on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable

doubt through other means, primarily circumstantial

evidence.

80. The mere recovery of a weapon, even if alleged to be

the instrument of crime, is not sufficient to establish

guilt. For a seized weapon to have strong probative value,

it must be forensically examined to determine if it was

indeed used in the commission of the crime (e.g.,

presence of victim's blood, fingerprints, matching with

injuries on the deceased).

81. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly

emphasized that mere recovery of a weapon, even if

blood-stained, is not enough to establish murder unless

the weapon is forensically linked to the cause of death.

The absence of such forensic analysis leaves a critical

gap in the chain of evidence, making it difficult for the

prosecution to prove that the "tangi" seized was, in fact,

the weapon used to commit the murder. Herein without

forensic corroboration, the recovery of the tangi remains

31

a piece of evidence that is not conclusively connected to

the crime.

82. In the case of Deen Dayal Tiwari Vs State Of Uttar

Pradesh, Crl.A. No.-002220-002221 – 2022, the

Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically stated that

crucially, the appellant highlighted the absence of any

serological report confirming that the bloodstains on the

weapons or clothes belonged to the deceased. The Court

noted that in the absence of such forensic evidence, the

link between the appellant and the weapons remained

unproved.

83. The said judgment emphasizes that without conclusive

forensic evidence, such as serological reports matching

bloodstains on the recovered weapons to the victims, the

evidentiary value of the mere recovery of weapons is

significantly diminished. This supports the argument

that mere recovery is insufficient to establish guilt.

84. In the Nazim Vs the State of Uttarakhand, Crl.A.

No.-000715-000715 – 2018 it has been observed that

the forensic report is neutral, the recovery is procedurally

suspect, and the High Court failed to grapple with these

deficiencies. This indicates that the absence of a proper

forensic report on the weapon, coupled with procedural

irregularities in its recovery, diminishes its evidentiary

value.

32

85. The aforesaid case highlights that a defective

investigation, including the failure to send a seized

weapon for forensic examination, can weaken the

prosecution's case and raise doubts about the guilt of the

accused. The Court's observation that the High Court

failed to address these deficiencies suggests that such

lapses can be crucial in an appeal.

86. In the case of Raja Naykar v. State of

Chhattisgarh, (2024) 3 SCC 481 the Hon’ble Apex

Court has observed that the mere recovery of a blood-

stained weapon, even if it bears the victim's blood group,

is insufficient to establish murder unless the weapon is

forensically linked to the cause of death. The

presumption of innocence prevails unless guilt is proven

beyond doubt.

87. Thus, in a murder case, a complete lack of credible

evidence to connect the convicts to the homicidal death,

including the absence of bloodstains or other forensic

evidence on recovered weapons, warrants acquittal by

giving the benefit of doubt to the accused.

88. Thus, it is settled position of law that an FSL report,

even if it links the weapon forensically to the crime,

serves as supporting evidence and not as standalone

proof. It must be corroborated by independent evidence,

and if the chain of evidence is broken or doubtful, the

33

recovery of the weapon becomes insufficient to uphold a

murder conviction. The standard of proof beyond

reasonable doubt must be strictly upheld, and any

lingering doubt about the accused's involvement must

result in the benefit of doubt being given to the accused,

leading to acquittal.

89. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law

this Court is now re-adverting to the facts of the present

case. It is admitted fact herein that seized axe recovered

from the house of the appellant alleged to be used in the

commission of crime was not sent for the forensic

examination in the laboratory.

90. In the present case, when no eye witness has been

examined, then, it was necessary to send the axe alleged

to be used in murder of the deceased for chemical

examination to FSL so as to establish link between the

blood stain, if any, found on the axe.

91. Hence, in a situation, as in the present case, when it

has come in the evidence that in almost all the houses of

the village, axe is kept in the house, then, by not sending

the axe for chemical examination, prosecution has failed

to establish link how the axe recovered from the house of

the appellant was used in the murder of the deceased.

92. Therefore, the axe recovered from the house of the

appellant, cannot be treated as cogent evidence to prove

34

the culpability of the appellant in the alleged commission

of crime.

93. Accordingly, issue no.(iii), is hereby answered.

94. It needs to refer herein that the Hon'ble Apex Court in

catena of decision has propounded the proposition that

in the criminal trial, there cannot be any conviction if the

charge is not being proved beyond all reasonable doubts,

as has been held in the case of Rang Bahadur Singh &

Ors. Vrs. State of U.P., reported in (2000) 3 SCC 454,

wherein, at paragraph-22, it has been held as under:-

"22. The amount of doubt which the Court would entertain

regarding the complicity of the appellants in this case is

much more than the level of reasonable doubt. We are

aware that acquitting the accused in a case of this nature

is not a matter of satisfaction for all concerned. At the

same time we remind ourselves of the time-tested rule that

acquittal of a guilty person should be preferred to

conviction of an innocent person. Unless the prosecution

establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable

doubt a conviction cannot be passed on the accused. A

criminal court cannot afford to deprive liberty of the

appellants, lifelong liberty, without having at least a

reasonable level of certainty that the appellants were the

real culprits. We really entertain doubt about the

involvement of the appellants in the crime."

95. Likewise, the Hon'ble Apex C ourt in the case of

Krishnegowda & Ors. Vrs. State of Karnataka, 2017

(13) SCC 98, has held at paragraph-26 as under:

"26. Having gone through the evidence of the prosecution

witnesses and the findings recorded by the High Court we

feel that the High Court has failed to understand the fact

35

that the guilt of the accused has to be proved beyond

reasonable doubt and this is a classic case where at each

and every stage of the trial, there were lapses on the part

of the investigating agency and the evidence of the

witnesses is not trustworthy which can never be a basis

for conviction. The basic principle of criminal jurisprudence

is that the accused is presumed to be innocent until his

guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt."

96. Further, it needs to refer herein the principle of

'benefit of doubt' belongs exclusively to criminal

jurisprudence. The pristine doctrine of 'benefit of doubt'

can be invoked when there is reasonable doubt regarding

the guilt of the accused, reference in this regard may be

made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of State of Haryana Vrs. Bhagirath

& Ors., reported in (1999) 5 SCC 96, wherein, it has

been held at paragraph-7 as under: -

"7. The High Court had failed to consider the implication of

the evidence of the two eyewitnesses on the complicity of

Bhagirath particularly when the High Court found their

evidence reliable. The benefit of doubt was given to

Bhagirath "as a matter of abundant caution".

Unfortunately, the High Court did not point out the area

where there is such a doubt. Any restraint by way of

abundant caution need not be entangled with the concept

of the benefit of doubt. Abundant caution is always

desirable in all spheres of human activity. But the principle

of benefit of doubt belongs exclusivel y to criminal

jurisprudence. The pristine doctrine of benefit of doubt can

be invoked when there is reasonable doubt regarding the

guilt of the accused. It is the reasonable doubt which a

conscientious judicial mind entertains on a conspectus of

the entire evidence that the accused might not have

36

committed the offence, which affords the benefit to the

accused at the end of the criminal trial. Benefit of doubt is

not a legal dosage to be administered at every segment of

the evidence, but an advantage to be a fforded to the

accused at the final end after consideration of the entire

evidence, if the Judge conscientiously and reasonably

entertains doubt regarding the guilt of the accused."

97. It needs to refer herein that the Hon'ble Apex Court, in

the case of Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat

reported in (2002) 3 SCC 57 has laid down the principle

that the golden thread which runs through the web of

administration of justice in criminal case is that if two

views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case,

one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to

his innocence, the view which is favourable to the

accused should be adopted, for ready reference,

paragraph 6 thereof requires to be referred herein which

reads hereunder as :-

“6. ------The golden thread which runs through the web

of administration of justice in criminal case is that if

two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the

case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the

other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to

the accused should be adopted. —"

214. It needs to refer herein before laying down the

aforesaid view, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra

reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 has already laid down the

same view at paragraph 163 which is required to be

37

referred which read hereunder as-

“163. We then pass on to another important point

which seems to have been completely missed by the

High Court. It is well settled that where on the

evidence two possibilities are available or open, one

which goes in favour of the prosecution and the other

which benefits an accused, the accused is

undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt.---"

98. This Court, after having discussed the factual aspect

and legal position as discussed hereinabove, is of the

view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges

against the appellant Lalu Ram @ Laloo Ram, beyond all

reasonable doubt as such the impugned judgment of

conviction and order of sentence requires interference by

this Court.

99. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 4

th

April, 2017 and order of sentence dated 7

th April, 2017,

passed by learned Sessions Judge, Gumla in Sessions

Trial No.356 of 2014, is hereby quashed and set aside.

100. In consequence thereof, the instant appeal stands

allowed.

101. Since, the appellant, is in custody and, as such, he is

directed to be set free forthwith, if not wanted in

connection to any other criminal case.

102. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court

concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this Judgment.

38

103. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand

disposed of.

I Agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Sanjay Prasad, J.) (Sanjay Prasad, J.)

6

th August, 2026

Alankar/ A.F.R.

Uploaded on 7.08.2026