2026:JHHC:5617-DB

Cr. App. (DB) No. 1047 of 2023

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1047 of 2023

Laxman Doraiburu @ Laxman D eraiburu, aged about 24 years,

Son of Late Ladura Doraiburu, Resident of Village-Gumuria, Tola

Talasai, P.O. & P.S.-Jagannathpur, Dist.- West Singhbhum.

... …Appellant

Versus

The State of Jharkhand ... …Respondent

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

For the Appellant : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate

Mr. Birat Kumar, Advocate

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate

Mr. Ashutosh Kr. Sinha, Advocate

For the Respondent : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl. P.P.

C.A.V. on 13.01.2026 Pronounced on 25/02/2026

J U D G E M E N T

Per: Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J

We have heard Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel for the

appellant and Learned Spl.P.P. for the State.

2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the

judgment dated 21.03.2023, passed in S.T. No. 188 of 2021, by

the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa,

whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been held guilty for

the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to

undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-

with default stipulation.

2026:JHHC:5617-DB

Cr. App. (DB) No. 1047 of 2023

2

Factual Matrix:-

3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on

09.05.2021, at about 08:00PM, informant’s husband Ankura

Doraiburu went to participate in marriage ceremony along with

his younger brother namely Laxman Doraiburu (present

appellant). It is alleged that while returning from the marriage

party, both brother started quarrelling with each other on the

question of sale of their Ox and reached near the courtyard of

their house. Meanwhile, Laxman Doraiburu whipped out a knife

and with intention to kill his brother stabbed from the backside

of the body, due to which, Ankura Doraiburu sustained severe

injuries and brought to CHC, Jagannathpur for treatment but

died in the way to Hospital.

4. The F.I.R. was lodged by the wife of the deceased (P.W.-4)

namely Manisha Doraiburu which was registered for the offence

under Section 302 of the IPC against the above named sole

appellant.

5. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for the said

offence and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to

the Court of Sessions, where S.T. No. 188 of 2021 was

registered. The appellant denied from the charge and claimed to

be tried.

6. In course of trial, altogether seven witnesses were examined

by the prosecution.

7. Apart from the oral testimony of witnesses, following

documentary evidence has been adduced:-

2026:JHHC:5617-DB

Cr. App. (DB) No. 1047 of 2023

3

i. Exhibit-1/PW1-Signature of P.W. -1 namely

Ramchandra Laguri upon Seizure List

ii. Exhibit-1/1 /P.W.2 -Signature of P.W.-2 namely

Mora Purty upon Seizure List

iii. Exhibit-P-1/2/PW6-Seizure List in writing and

signature of S.I. Jouni Kumar of Jagannathpur P.S.

iv. Exhibit-P-2/PW6- Fardbeyan in writing and signature

of S.I. Jouni Kumar of Jagannathpur.

v. Exhibit-P2/1/PW6- Endorsement on Fardbeyan to

register the case in writing and signature of P.W.-6 namely

Devsay Bhagat, I.O.

vi. Exhibit P3/PW6- Carbon Copy of inquest report in

writing and signature of S.I. Jouni Kumar of Jagannathpur

P.S.

vii. Exhibit-P4/PW6- Formal FIR prepared by Billu Mahto,

Computer Operator under supervision of P.W.6 namely

Devsay Bhagat, I.O.

viii. Exhibit P5/PW7- Post-Mortem Report of deceased in

writing and signature of P.W.7 Dr. Md. Khalid Anjum.

ix. Exhibit-P6- Biological Examination Report

x. Exhibit P-6/1-D.N.A. Examination Report

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

occurrence and plea of innocence along with plea of alibi of the

accused that he was not present at the place of occurrence at the

relevant date and time.

9. The learned trial court after evaluating the evidence

available on record held the appellant guilty and sentenced for

the offence under Section 302 IPC as stated above which has

been assailed in this appeal.

2026:JHHC:5617-DB

Cr. App. (DB) No. 1047 of 2023

4

Submissions on behalf of appellant: -

10. Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant has

argued that out of seven witnesses examined in this case by the

prosecution except P.W.-4, wife of the deceased-cum-informant,

none is eye-witness of occurrence. P.W.-1-Ramchandra Laguri is

hearsay witness and all other witnesses of facts namely, P.W.-2-

Mora Purty, P.W.-3- Joteya Kishore Pingua and P.W.-5-Jingi

Doraiburu have been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.-6

is the investigating officer and P.W.-7 is Dr. Md. Khalid Anjum

has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. It is

further submitted that the sole eyewitness i.e. P.W.-4, wife of the

deceased, has also not seen the occurrence and admitted in her

evidence that when she came out of her home, she saw her

husband under injured condition. It is further submitted that

even if, the whole prosecution story may be accepted to be true,

for the sake of argument, the case under Section 302 of the IPC

is not made out, in view of the fact that there was single stab

injury sustained by the deceased and due to property dispute,

the occurrence took place, in a sudden manner, without any

premeditation and there was absence of intention to kill the

deceased. Therefore, the case falls under Exception-IV of Section

300 of the IPC and appellant may be held guilty for the offence

under Section 304-Part-I of the IPC and not under Section 302 of

the IPC.

2026:JHHC:5617-DB

Cr. App. (DB) No. 1047 of 2023

5

In this connection, learned counsel for the appellant has

placed reliance upon the reported judgment in Surinder Kumar

Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh, AIR 1989 SC 1094.

Submissions on behalf of State:-

11. On the other hand, learned Spl.P.P. refuting the aforesaid

contentions raised on behalf of the appellant submitted that it is

not the number of witnesses rather quality of the evidence of

witness, which has to be taken into account. In this case, P.W.-

4, Manisha Doraiburu is none else but the wife of the deceased.

She has categorically deposed that her brother-in-law (appellant)

stabbed with knife on back side of the deceased. She also

intervened and forbade the accused stabbing her husband but

she was threatened of life. There was electricity light at the

relevant time. Her testimony has not been rebutted in her cross-

examination and rightly relied upon by the learned trial Court

and also finds corroboration from the evidence of P.W.-7 i.e. Dr.

Khalid Anjum who has conducted autopsy on the dead body of

the deceased. The stab injury inflicted by appellant, damaged the

lungs of deceased instantaneously and before reaching the

hospital, he died. The circumstance categorically indicates that

the appellant was armed with knife and in a pre -planned

manner, due to dispute of property has intentionally eliminated

his own brother. The ingredients of Exception –IV of Section 300

of the IPC are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of

this case. Admittedly, the deceased was having no weapon and

there was exchange of only abusive words during scuffle.

2026:JHHC:5617-DB

Cr. App. (DB) No. 1047 of 2023

6

Therefore, it cannot be said that there was a sudden fight

between the deceased and the appellant, which involves

exchange of assault from both side. Similarly, the appellant

holding a knife has given a mighty blow on the vital part of the

body to the deceased who was without arm, indicates as to how

cruelly and in unusual manner, the appellant has executed the

offence. Therefore, there is no legal substance in the contentions

raised on behalf of the appellant and no merits in this appeal,

which is fit to be dismissed.

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

impugned judgment in the light of contentions raised on behalf

of respective parties. Following points emerges in this appeal for

adjudication: -

i. Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and

sentence of the appellant suffers from any error of law

calling for any interference in this appeal?

ii. Whether the appellant is entitled for the benefit of

Exception IV of Section 300 of the IPC and his conviction

and sentence is liable to be altered from Section 302 of the

IPC to 304-Part-I of the IPC?

Analysis, discussions and reasons: -

13. Before imparting our verdict on the aforesaid points, we

have to take brief resume of evidence adduced in this case.

P.W.-4 Manisha Doraiburu is the sole star eye witness in this

case and wife of the deceased who has been examined as P.W.-4.

She has corroborated the contents of her fardbeyan and deposed

2026:JHHC:5617-DB

Cr. App. (DB) No. 1047 of 2023

7

that on the date of occurrence, her husband along with his

brother-in-law had gone to attend marriage ceremony and

returned at about 8 PM in night. Laxman Doraiburu stabbed her

husband. She came out from the house and told her brother-in-

law as to why he was assaulting to her husband and also

stopped him to give any further assault then she was threatened

to life by the accused. She has further stated that in the next

morning, police arrived at her house and her fardbeyan was

recorded. She also informed about the occurrence to the village

Manki and Munda.

This witness has been extensively cross-examined by the

defence, wherein, she admits cordial relationship between her

husband and deceased and they were not scuffling to each other

at any point of time. She has denied that on the date of

occurrence; she had gone to her paternal home and was not

present. Attention of this witness has been drawn towards the

minor contradictions that she has not stated before the police

that there was electricity light when the accused was assaulting

to her husband (deceased) and she intervened and forbade her

brother-in-law. She has also denied the suggestion of the defence

that with a view to grab the lands of the accused, she has lodged

false case and no such occurrence took place. There is nothing

else to discredit her testimony.

P.W.-1 Ramchandra Laguri is a local villager and hearsay

witness of occurrence who came to know in the village that

present appellant has given stab wound to his own brother. He

2026:JHHC:5617-DB

Cr. App. (DB) No. 1047 of 2023

8

informed the police and after arrival of police in the village, the

knife used in the commission of assault to the deceased was

seized in his presence and he has also singed over the seizure

list marked as Exhibit-1.

P.W.-2 Mora Purty is also hearsay witness and arrived at the

place of occurrence after receipt of information. He has also

identified the signature on the seizure list of knife marked as

Exhibit 1/1. He has been declared hostile.

P.W.-3 Joteya Kishore Pingua has been declared hostile by the

prosecution and expressed no knowledge about the occurrence.

P.W.-5 Jingi Doraiburu is the mother of the deceased and she

has also been declared hostile by the prosecution. The reason is

obvious that both the appellant and deceased are her son and

she is not interested to get punishment of another son.

P.W.-7 Dr. Md. Khalid Anjum was posted at Sadar Hospital

Chaibasa as Medical Officer. On 10.05.2021 at 12:05 PM, he

conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the

deceased and found the following findings: -

i. Rigor mortis present partially in both upper and lower

limb

External Injuries

i. Eye closed, mouth closed.

ii. A stab injury over interscapular area of 03 cm x 01

cm font going antro-inferiorly.

2026:JHHC:5617-DB

Cr. App. (DB) No. 1047 of 2023

9

External Injuries

A-Thorax –

i. Right lung-intact and congested.

ii. Left lungs severely lacerated and collapsed.

iii. Blood in pleural cavity.

iv. Heart-intact and empty.

B-Abdomen

i. Liver-intact and congested.

ii. Spleen-intact

iii. Both kidney-intact and C.M.J. Maintained.

iv. Stomach-Contain undigested food particle

v. Urinary Bladder-intact and 50 Ml. Urin

vi. Rest all viscera-intact and within normal limit.

C-Head-

i. Skull vault –intact

ii. Brain parenchyma- intact

He has opined that time since death- within 18-38 hours

and cause of death is Haemorrhagic shock and lung

damage caused by sharp and pointed object. Such injuries

may be caused by knife.

He has proved his handwriting and signature over

post-mortem report marked as Ext. P-5.

In his cross-examination, he has stated as under:-

3. Aforesaid injuries may be sustained by any sharp and

pointed object than knife.

4. Time since death may vary according to climate.

2026:JHHC:5617-DB

Cr. App. (DB) No. 1047 of 2023

10

5. No chemical examination over the dead body was

done.

6. Viscera was not preserved for any test.

7. It is not true that report is vague.

P.W.-6, S.I. Devsay Bhagat is the investigating officer of this

case. According to his evidence, on 10.05.2021, he was posted as

officer-in-charge of Jagannathpur Police Station. He received

telephone message that in village Gumuriya Tola Talasai, one

Laxman Doraiburu has stabbed his own brother Ankura

Doraiburu causing his death. He registered S.D. Entry and along

with other police personnel proceeded towards place of

occurrence after giving information to superior police and

reached at the place of occurrence at village Gumuria Tola

Talasai and fardbeyan of Manish Doraiburu was recorded by S.I.

Jouni Kumar in presence of village Manki Ramchandra Laguri

and other witnesses Mora Purti and Jingi Doraiburu and the

fardbeyan was proved as Exhibit P/2.

S.I. Jouni Kumar also prepared inquest report of the

deceased in the presence of two independent witnesses which is

marked as Exhibit-P/3. He has further deposed that considering

the gravity of offence, he himself took charge of investigation of

this case and recorded restatement of the informant and also

seized the blood-stained knife used in commission of murder of

the deceased in presence of witnesses which was prepared in

writing by the S.I. Jouni Kumar and marked as Exhibit P-1/2.

He has further endorsed on fardbeyan for registration of case

2026:JHHC:5617-DB

Cr. App. (DB) No. 1047 of 2023

11

which is marked as Exhibit P-2/1. Formal FIR has been proved

as Exhibit-P-4.

In the course of investigation, he recorded confessional

statement of accused who has confessed his guilt. He inspected

the place of occurrence which is the house of Manisha Doraiburu

(informant) where deadbody of her husband was lying. He

recorded statement of other witnesses namely Ramchandra

Laguri, Mora Purty, Joteya Kishore Pingua, Jingi Doraiburu, etc.

Attention of this witness has also been drawn towards the

statement of witness Mora Purti, P.W.-2 who has stated before

him that “on 09.05.2021, at about 8 PM, Ankura Doraiburu and

Laxman Doraiburu returned from the marriage ceremony to their

home scuffing with each other due to sale of Ox. Meanwhile,

younger brother has assaulted and stabbed on back side of his

elder brother. The injured was being brought to hospital but

died”. He has also stated that witness Joteya Kishore Pingua and

Jingi Doraiburu have also stated that both brothers were

scuffling due to dispute about sale of Ox after returning from

marriage ceremony and Ankura Doraiburu was stabbed by his

brother Laxman Doraiburu. This witness finding sufficient

evidence against the accused for the offence under Section 302

of the IPC submitted charge -sheet No. 37/2021 dated

11.06.2021. This witness has been cross -examined by the

defence but no attention has been drawn of this witness that

informant was not present on the date of occurrence rather had

2026:JHHC:5617-DB

Cr. App. (DB) No. 1047 of 2023

12

gone to her paternal home. No material affecting the prosecution

case has been elicited in the cross-examination of this witness.

14. We have given thoughtful consideration to the overall

evidence adduced by the prosecution. No oral or documentary

evidence has been adduced by the defe nce except plea of

innocence and non-presence at the place of occurrence.

15. It is quite obvious from the deposition of sole eye witness

P.W.-4 namely Manish Doraiburu that the appellant and elder

brother (deceased) went to attend the marriage ceremony and

returned at about 8:00 PM, in the evening, suddenly, a dispute

broke up between the deceased and the present appellant on the

question of selling an Ox jointly owned by them. The dispute

accelerated and the present appellant at the spur of moment got

enraged and gave a stab blow from knife from behind to his own

brother, who sustained injury causing damage of lungs

immediately, resulting in his death. The Post Mortem Report of

the deceased as proved by Dr. Md. Khalid Anjum also goes to

show that the deceased has sustained stab injury over

interscapular area which was the immediate cause of bleeding,

shock and haemorrhage resulting in the death of the deceased.

There was no injury except single injury caused by knife. The

evidence of P.W.-6, S.I. Devsay Bhagat who is Investigating

Officer in this case has proved the place of occurrence to be the

house of the appellant and accused persons. He also seized

blood-stained knife from the place of occurrence, which was

used in stabbing the deceased in presence of witnesses but the

2026:JHHC:5617-DB

Cr. App. (DB) No. 1047 of 2023

13

same was not produced during trial as material exhibit nor it

was sent to F.S.L. for chemical examination.

16. Mere aforesaid omissions of the investigating officer cannot

give a premium to the accused in the shape of serious doubt in

prosecution story. Therefore, it is established beyond doubt that

it is the appellant himself who has stabbed his own brother

causing his instantaneous death. There is no reason to believe

the theory of innocence and plea of alibi taken by the appellant.

17. It is settled principle of law that conviction can be based

upon solitary testimony of witness who is considered to be

absolutely reliable and his testimony does not suffer from any

malice or ill-will towards the accused.

18. Now, we have to consider whether in the given set of facts

and circumstances of this case, the offence committed by the

appellant falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC which

reads as under:-

“Exception 4 : Culpable homicide is not

murder if it is committed without

premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat

of passion upon a sudden quarrel and

without the offender having taken undue

advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual

manner.

Explanation : It is immaterial in such cases

which party offers the provocation or

commits the first assault.”

19. In order to invoke the above explanation, following

requirements must be satisfied: -

(i) There must be a sudden fight;

2026:JHHC:5617-DB

Cr. App. (DB) No. 1047 of 2023

14

(ii) There must not be premeditation;

(iii) The act was done in a heat of passion; and

(iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted

in a cruel manner.

In order to invoke above exception, the cause of the quarrel

is not relevant nor is it relevant as to who offered the provocation

or started the assault. The number of wounds caused during the

occurrence is not a decisive factor but what is important is that

the occurrence must have been sudden and unpremeditated and

the offender must have acted in a fit of anger. Of course, the

offender must not have taken any undue advantage or acted in a

cruel manner.

20. In the case of Surinder Kumar Vs. Union Territory,

Chandigarh, AIR 1989 SC 1094 relied upon by the learned

counsel for the appellant, the factual matrix was that the

deceased and his brother had a heated argument and while

heated exchange of abusive words in presence of sister, the

accused picked up a knife from kitchen and inflicted blow on the

neck of his brother causing a bleeding injury which resulted in

his death.

21. In the above factual aspects, an assault given by the

appellant, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that “where

in case of quarrel between the deceased and the accused, the

death is caused without premeditation and without taking any

undue advantage or acting in a cruel or unusual manner, the

accused was given benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the

2026:JHHC:5617-DB

Cr. App. (DB) No. 1047 of 2023

15

IPC.” It was also held that merely because three injuries were

caused to the deceased during the scuffle, it could not be said

that he had acted in a cruel and unusual manner and his

conviction was altered from offence under Section 302 of the IPC

to Section 304, Part-I of the IPC and sentence was also altered to

the extent of 7 years rigorous imprisonment.

22. In the instant case, we find that the genesis, manner and

place of occurrence has been proved by the prosecution to the

hilt. There is also no doubt that a single stab blow was given by

the appellant to his own brother in a sudden quarrel without

premeditation. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it

cannot be assumed that there was any intention to kill the

deceased or any undue advantage was taken by the appellant.

Mere possession of knife by the appellant cannot give rise to the

conclusion that he was intending to kill the deceased. Therefore,

we find that the ingredients of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the

IPC have been categorically established in this case.

23. In view of the above discussion and reason s, we feel

inclined to set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant

for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC rather he is

convicted and held guilty for the offence under Section 304, Part-

I of the IPC. The sentence of appellant is also altered and he is

directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years along with

a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in case of default in payment of fine,

further to undergo simple imprisonment for one years. The fine,

if realized, shall be paid to the wife and children of the deceased.

2026:JHHC:5617-DB

Cr. App. (DB) No. 1047 of 2023

16

24. The period of custody already undergone by appellant shall

be set off from the substantive period of imprisonment awarded

to him in this appeal.

25. The Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, West

Singhbhum at Chaibasa is also directed to process the adequate

compensation to the victims/heirs of the deceased from State

Victim Compensation Fund, in accordance with law.

26. In view of the above, this appeal is partly allowed.

27. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned court

below.

28. Let a copy of this Order be also sent to the Chairman,

DLSA, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa.

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

(PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.)

Jharkhand High Court

Date 25/02/2026

Basant/ N. A. F. R.

Uploaded on 26/02/2026