1 2026:JHHC:1652-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

--------

Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 250 of 1997(R)

------

(Against the judgment of conviction dated 20.09.1997 and order of

sentence dated 22.09.1997, passed by learned AdditionalDistrict

and Sessions Judge,Bokaro, in Sessions Trial No.443 of 1994)

------

1. Madhab Chandra Dey alias Madhu,Son of Panchanan Dey,

resident of Vivekanand Road,P.O. & P.S. Chas, District-

Bokaro … Appellant

Versus

The State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) … Respondent

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

…..

For the Appellant : Mr. Pradyot Chattterjee, Advocate

For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin,SPP

…..

C.A.V. on 19/12/2025 Pronounced on 21/01/2026

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.:

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

the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 against the judgment

of conviction dated 20.09.1997 and order of sentence dated

22.09.1997 passed by learned Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Bokaro, in Sessions Trial No.443 of 1994

whereby and whereunder the appellantha sbeen convicted

under sections302/34 and section 3 94 of IPC and

sentenced to undergo life imprisonment each under

sections 302/34 IPC and 394 IPC. Both the sentences were

ordered to run concurrently.

2. At the outset it needs to refer herein that it is evident from

the order dated 05.02.2025 passed by the co-ordinate

Benchof this Court that one of the appellant Ludka Kandu

2 2026:JHHC:1652-DB

alias Bhagwan Das, Son of Late Gopal Kandu has died

during the pendency of the instant appeal, hence, the

instant appeal has already abated against him.

Prosecution Case:

3. The prosecution case, in brief, as per the fardbeyan dated

15.12.1993, of the informant Nand Lal Dey(P.W.-1), is that

on 15.12.1993, in the morning at 6.30 A.M., informant

along with other family members had gone to Rajrappa for

marriage of his niece (bhagni) Shanti Dutta. Informant

further stated that before going to Rajrappa, entire room of

the house was locked and his old fuaa(father‟s sister)

Khenubala Dasi, was left to look after the house.

4. Informant further stated that in Rajrappa, marriage was

performed and they left for Chas at about 4.30 P.M., in the

evening and they reached their house at about 7.30 P.M.

and at the time of entering the house, the electricity in the

entire market was cut.He entered into the house in dark

and called his fuaa(father‟s sister), but, she did not answer.

Then, he told his son-in-law(damad) Ranjan Dutta to bring

candle and in the light of the candlethey entered into the

house and found the lock of the door of the room situated

on the way from baramadawas broken. Onentering inside

the room, they found lock of the rooms and boxes were

broken and articles kept inside the boxes were scattered.

They became nervous and started searching fuaa(father‟s

sister) and found her lying, in pool of blood, on the floor of

3 2026:JHHC:1652-DB

the stair case room. It has further been stated that neck of

fuaa (father‟s sister) was found cut with a sharp cutting

weapon and she was dead.

5. Informanthas further alleged that the room situated on the

first floor was also opened and ornaments of gold and silver

and other articles were missing from the box. Informant

suspected hand of Gopi Dey, Suvash Ghosal, Ludka Kandu,

Genda Dhibar and Jaideo Dhiber in the alleged commission

of crime as Jaideo Dhiber wanted to marry his niece Shanti

Dutta and had threatened to kidnap her.

6. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, F.I.R being

Chas P.S. case no. 216/1993 dated 15.12.1993 was

registered under section 302 and 382 of IPC against the

against Gopi Dey, Suvash Ghosal, Ludka Kandu, Genda

Dhibarand Jaideo Dhiber. After investigation, charge sheet

was submitted against the accused persons and the

cognizance of the offense were takenand the case was

committed to the court of sessions.

7. Charges under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C. were framed

against the appellant Madhab Chandra Dey and also

against Ludka Kandu (since dead) including the accused

Rajesh Kumar Dutta . Separate charges were framed

against the appellant Madhab Chandra Dey and Ludka

Kandu under section 412 of IPC.Charges wereexplained to

themto which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be

tried. The accused persons along the appellant herein, were

4 2026:JHHC:1652-DB

examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied all the

allegations.

8. The prosecution in order to prove the case has examined

altogetherfifteen witnessesincluding the informant Nand Lal

Dey (P.W.-1),Doctor P.W.-13 and Investigating Officer P.W.-

14.

9. The learned trial Court, after recording the evidence of

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

recorded the statement of the accused persons, and found

the accused persons guilty under Section 302/34 and 394

IPC and accordingly sentenced them, in the manner as

stated hereinabove.

10. Against the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence the

present appeal has been preferred.

Submission on behalf of the appellant:

11. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the

impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence on

the following grounds:

I. The prosecution has miserably failed to establish the

charge, beyond all reasonable doubt, in establishing

the charge said to be committed by the accused

appellant under sections 302 and 394 of the IPC.

II. Seizure list witnesses P.W.-11 and P.W.-12,in context

of the recovery of money from Ludka Kandu (since

dead), were declared hostile and also the seizure list

witnesses P.W.-8 and P.W.-10,who had witnessed the

5 2026:JHHC:1652-DB

recovery of money from appellant Madhab Chandra

Dey, did not support the prosecution case.

III. Further another Seizure list witness P.W.-6 who stated

to be the witness of the recovery of knife also did not

support the prosecution case and has been declared

hostile. Further anotherseizure list witness P.W.-7

related to the recovery of knife also did not support the

prosecution case.

IV. Learned court below failed to take into consideration

that there is no iota of evidence regarding the

conversion of alleged robbed ornaments into money.

12. Learned counselfor the appellant, in the backdrop of

aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the impugned

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 APP for the State:

13. Per Contra, learned counsel 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

witnesses who have supported the prosecution version.

14. It has been submitted that theinformant P.W.-1 Nand Lal

Dey and informant‟s brother P.W.-3 Anath Chandra Dey,

6 2026:JHHC:1652-DB

have remain consistent in their evidence in examination-in-

chief as well as in their cross-examination also.

15. Further, there is strong circumstantial evidence available on

record in order to substantiate the culpability of the present

appellant in the alleged commission of crime i.e.in the

murder of the deceased Khenubala Dasi.

16. It has been submitted that during post-mortem examination

a sharp cutting injury on the neck of the deceased was

found by the doctor which suggest that death of the

deceased was homicidal and caused by the sharp weapon

like Knife and thus this fact has also corroborated the

prosecution story wherein it has come on record that knife

was recovered.

17. Therefore, submission has been made that the prosecution

version has not only been supported by the testimonies of

the witnesses but the prosecution version has also been

supported by the medical evidence.

18. Learned State counsel based upon the aforesaid grounds

has submitted that the prosecution has been able toprove

the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt.

Analysis:

19. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the

documents and the testimony of witnesses as also the

finding recorded by learned trial Court in the impugned

order.

7 2026:JHHC:1652-DB

20. It is evident from the record that in order to substantiate

the case, the prosecution had altogether examined fifteen

witnesses out of whom PW-1 Nand Lal Dey is the maternal

uncle of the deceased and informant of the case; P.W.-2

Gopal Pal, is witness of an inquest report; P.W.-3 Anath

Chandra Dey, is the brother of the informant; P.W.-4 is

Bishwanath Ghoshal @ Bishtu Ghosal; P.W.-5 Sadhan

Acharya; P.W.-6 Arun Chaterjee, is an seizure list witness

and he was declared hostile; P.W.-7 Gour Datta, P.W.-8 is

Duja Pad Dey;P.W.-10 Shaligram Dutta and P.W.-11

Ganesh Duta and P.W.-12 Rajen Dutta, areseizure list

witness . P.W.-13 is Dr. Chandra Bhusan Prasad Singh and

he had conducted post -mortem examination;P.W.-14 is

Officer-in-charge Rajendra Prasad and he is the

investigating officer of the case.

21. This Court, before appreciating the 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

testimoniesof the prosecution witnesses. For ready

reference, the relevant portion of their testimonies is

referred as under:

22. PW-1 Nand Lal Dey is the maternal uncle of the deceased.

In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that on

15.12.1993, in morning at 7.30 A.M., he along with Anath

Dey, Shambhu Duta and Rajan Dutta and other family

members had gone to Rajrappa for marriage of his niece.

8 2026:JHHC:1652-DB

After marriage they proceeded for home at 4.30P.M., and

reached their home at about 7.30P.M., in the evening and at

that time electricity of the market was cut.Informant further

stated that he entered into the house and called his

fuaa(father‟s sister)and told his son-in -law(damad) to bring

candle and in the light of the candle they saw that lock of

the outside door was broken and lock of the door inside the

room was also broken. Three boxes and one leather bag

were opened and articles and ornaments of gold and silver

were missing. He had further deposed that h e started

weeping and hearing hallaseveral persons from market

came to his house. They searched fuaa(father‟s sister) and

found her body inside the stair case room in pool of blood.

In the light of candle, they saw the neck of his fuaa(father‟s

sister) was cut. This witness had further suspected

thatGopi Dey, Suvash Ghosal, Ludka Kandu, Genda Dhibar

and JaideoDhiberwas involved in the commission of crime.

Informant has identified his signature on the fardbeyan,

which was marked as Ext.-1 and fardbeyan was marked as

Ext.-2. Informanthad further stated that police had

recovered Rs. 18,000/- from accused Ludka Kandu and Rs.

30,000/- from accused/appellant Madhab Chandra

Dey.Informant further stated that in the market he heard

that crime was committed by the accused Madhab Chandra

Dey and he informed to the D.S.P. about it.He had further

9 2026:JHHC:1652-DB

stated that Rajesh Dutta is his niece and he used to come

to his house.

In his cross-examination informant has stated that he

did not know that in Rajrappa Temple, committee gives

receipt of Rs. 11/- on marriage and he does not know

whether they got the receipt of or not. He had stated to the

police that accused Jaideo Dhiber wanted to marry his

niece(bhagni) Shanti Dutta, but, they did not want to marry

with him.Jaideo used to pressurize hisniece(bhagini) and

used to threatened to kidnap her.

23. P.W.-2 Gopal Pal, is witness of the inquest report.He had

stated in his evidence that Nand Lal Dey(informant) had

returned home at about 7.30P.M., from Rajrappa after

marriage of his bhagniShanti Dutta and after returning

home he raisedhalla that his fuaa(father‟s sister) had been

killed.On hearing halla he had gone to the house of the

informant and saw body of deceased in pool of blood and

her neck was cut and the body of deceased was found

inside the stair case room. He had signed on the inquest

report.

24. P.W.-3 Anath Chandra Dey, is the brother of the informant.

P.W.-3 has stated in his evidence that on the day of

occurrence on 15.12.1993,in morning at 7.30 A.M., he

along with other family members had gone to Rajrappa for

marriage of his niece and had left his fuaa(father‟s sister) to

look after the house. They had locked the front side of the

10 2026:JHHC:1652-DB

house.After marriage they proceeded for Chas at 4.30P.M.,

and reached their home at about 7.30P.M., in the evening

and when they reached their home electricity of the market

was cut and they entered the house in dark itself and called

deceased i.e. fuaaje (father‟s sister), but, she did not

reply.He had further deposed that he told his son-in -

law(damad) to bring candle and in the light of the candle

they saw that lock of the outside door was brokenand when

they went inside the room, they found articles of three

boxes and one leather bag were scattered and ornaments of

gold and silver were missing. They raised hallaand family

members came there and other personsfrom market also

assembled, hearing on halla. P.W.-3 further stated that they

had entered the house taking candle and found the body of

his fuaa(father‟s sister) in the stair case room in pool of

blood and neck was cut.P.W.-3 suspected hand of Gopi Dey,

Suvash Ghosal, Ludka Kandu, Genda Dhibar, Jaideo

Dhiber, Rajesh Dutta and Madhab Chandra Dey in the

commission of crime as they used to commit crime. P.W.-3

further stated that later on he came to know that

ornaments were sold at goldsmith shop at Bankur to

Mathur Chandra Dey.

25. P.W.4 Bishwanath Ghoshal @ Bishtu Ghosal has stated in

his evidence that on 15.12.1993 at about 7-8 P.M., there

was hallathat Khenubala Dasi (deceased) had been

murdered and he saw that several persons were going to the

11 2026:JHHC:1652-DB

house of the informant. He also went to the house of the

informant and saw the body of Khenubala Dasi in the stair

case room. In his cross-examination P.W.-4 stated that on

the day of occurrence informant Nand Lal had gone to

Rajrappa in marriage.

26. P.W.-5 Sadhan Acharya had stated in his evidence that on

15.12.1993, on hearing halla he had gone to the house of

informant Nand Lal, at about 8-8.30P.M. and saw body of

Khenubala Dasi in the stair case room and her neck was

cut.

27. P.W.-6 Arun Chaterjee, is seizure list witness. P.W.-6 has

stated in his evidence that incidence occurred on

15.12.1993 and informant had gone to Chinmistika temple

in the marriage of his bhagni and thereafter, they returned

home at about 8 P.M., in the night.P.W.-6 had further

stated that he had gone to the informant‟s house and saw

body of Khenubala Dasi. Box was broken and articles were

scattered.P.W.-6 further stated that accused Rajesh Kumar

Dutta had told nothing and he further stated that when

police came then informant raised suspicion on some

persons. This witness has been declared hostile by the

prosecution.

In his cross-examination P.W.-6 stated that he had not

stated before the police that accused Rajesh Dutta had told

him that in the occurrence of theft and murder, which took

place on 15.12.1993, accused Madhab Chandra Dey and

12 2026:JHHC:1652-DB

Ludka Kandu were involved.P.W.-6 denied that on

23.12.1993, on saying of the accused Rajesh Kumar Dutta,

police had seized spring knife from pond, behind

Chandrakantmarket.

28. P.W.-7 Gour Datta is another seizure list witness and he

had stated in his evidence that in this case police had

recovered a knife and the said knife was kept on the table of

daroga je.P.W.-7 further stated that daroga je told him to

become witness and he had consented for same.

In his cross-examination P.W.-7 stated that he was called in

the police station and was asked to sign on the paper but

he did not see, who had brought the said knife and from

which place it has been brought.P.W.-7 further stated that

seeing the crowd, he had gone to the police station and

there daroga je had called him.

29. P.W.-8 Duja Pad Dey is samdhi of the informantand seizure

list witness.P.W.-8 has stated in his evidence that incident

occurred on 15.12.1993. They had gone to Rajrappa for

marriage of his son Baidnath Dey with Shanti Devi and

marriage was solemnized there. Pandajeehad given receipt

of marriage and the receipt was marked as „X‟ for

identification. They proceeded for house from Rajrappa at 5-

5.30 P.M and reached Chas at 7-7.30 P.M., and as soon as

they reached their house his son told him to go to the house

of samdhi(informant) and when he entered the house, he

saw the body of Khenubala Dasi(deceased) in the stair case

13 2026:JHHC:1652-DB

room and her neck was cut. The lock of the door was

broken and four- five boxes were also broken and articles

were scattered.His samdhi told him that money and

ornaments were missing from the box.Police had made

seizure list and P.W.-8 had identified his signature on the

seizure list, which was marked as Ext.-1/5.

P.W.-8 in his cross-examination had stated that he had

seen the money in police station itself and daroga jeehad

told to signed, so, he had signed on the paper and he does

not know what was written in the paper.

30. P.W.-10 is Shaligram Dutta and he is also seizure list

witness.P.W.-10 has stated in his evidence that when

accused Madhu,Ludka and Rajesh were arrested, then,

police had called him in the police station and there Ludka

and Rajesh had told him that they had sold the ornament of

Khenubala Dasi at Bankura for a sum of Rs. 55,000/.P.W.-

10 further stated that police had shown him Rs. 30,000/-

and Rs. 20,000/- at the police station and police told him

that Rs. 30,000/- was recovered from accused Madhu and

Rs. 20,000/- was recovered from accused Ludka.P.W.-10

had identified his signature on the seizure list,which was

marked as Ext.-1/6.

In his cross-examination P.W.-10 stated that informant

Nand Lal Dey is his son-in-law(damad).He did not know

what was written in paper on which he had signed. P.W.-10

14 2026:JHHC:1652-DB

further stated that police had come to his house and police

had taken him from his house.

31. P.W.-11 Ganesh Duta, is also seizure list witness.P.W.-11

has stated in his evidence that police had shown him

Rs.18,000/-and told him that money was recovered from

the house of Ludka Kandu and police told him to become

witness and at the police station he signed on the seizure

list.P.W.-11 has identified his signature on the seizure list

which was marked as Ext.-1/6A.

P.W.-11 was cross-examined by the prosecution under

section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act wherein P.W.-11 had

stated that it is not true that Ludka Kandu had admitted

before him that on the date of occurrence Ludka

Kandu,Madhab Chandra D utta and Rajesh Kumar Dutta

had committed theft in the house of the informant and they

had killed Khenubala Dasi. P.W.-11 further stated that it is

not true that money was recovered in his presence from the

house of Ludka Kandu, instead, money had already been

recovered and the said money was shown to him and was

told that money was recovered from the house of Ludka

Kandu and money was kept on the table in the police

station and he had counted the money.

32. P.W.-12 Rajesh Dutta, is another seizure list witness and he

had been declared hostile. P.W-12 has stated in his

evidence that he was shown Rs. 18,000/- recovered from

15 2026:JHHC:1652-DB

accused Ludka, at the police station and was told to put his

signature on the seizure list and he put his signature on it.

P.W.-12 in his cross-examination had stated that it is not

true that police had recovered Rs.18,000/- from the house

of Ludka, in his presence.

33. P.W.-13 is Dr. Chandra Bhusan Prasad Singh and he had

conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of

Khenubala Dasi. Doctor had stated in his evidence that on

16.12.93,he was posted as Medical Officer in Sub -

Divisional Hospital, Chas and on that day,hehad conducted

post mortem examination on the dead body of Khenubala.

Doctor had found following ante-mortem injuries: -

External appearance-body was found structured with dry

blood here and there. An incised wound was present on the

neck which was 6" x 3/2" x into cervical vertebrae deep. All

the soft tissues (wind pipe,cartoried arteries and jugallor vein

bilaterally etc. closed of the neck extending from skin interial

to 3rd cervical vertebrae. Lungs, liver, spleen were pale.

Bruise and its membrane were pale.

Rigor mortis present in upper and lower extremities. In

mouth there is no teeth.In stomach and small intestine

digested food material and faecal present.

34. Doctor opined that the cause of death was due to incised

wound of the neck leading to severe hemorrhage and shock

and neck were found to be severed. Time elapsed since

death till post mortem examination done-within 24 to 36

hours. Doctor stated that the post mortem examination

report was in his pen and hand writing and bears

hissignature. Post mortem examination report was marked

as Ext.-3.

16 2026:JHHC:1652-DB

35. P.W.-14 is Officer-in-charge Rajendra Prasad and he the

investigating officer of the case.Investigating officer had

sated in his evidence that on 15.12.1993, he was posted as

additional officer-in-charge of Chas police station. He had

recorded the fardbeyan of the informant. Investigating

officer stated that place of occurrence is the two storied,

north facing house of the informant and the dead body of

Khenubala Dasi was found in the stair case room and her

neck was cut and blood was found in the stair case room.

The lock of the suitcase was found broken and articles were

found scattered.Inquest report of the deceased Khenubala

Dasi was prepared on his direction by A.S.I. Madhu Sudhan

Singh and the inquest report was marked as Ext.-4.

36. The Investigating officer had further stated that on

21.12.1993, during evening patrolling, he received secret

information that named accused Madhab Chandra Dey was

absconding from the date of occurrence and he was seen

with the accused Ludka Kandu, at about 1.00P.M., on the

place of occurrence.Accused Madhab Chandra Dey was

arrested from Bankura and he confessed his guiltand told

that looted ornaments were sold to Mathur Chandra Paul at

Bankura for a sum of Rs.55,000/- and he gave Rs.20,000/-

to Ludka Kandu. Madhab Chandra Deyalso told that he

kept the remaining money with him and hide the money at

the backside of his bari.Investigating officer further stated

that he along with Bankura Officer-in-charge raided the

17 2026:JHHC:1652-DB

jewelry shop of Mathur Chandra Paul, but he was not

present and shop was sealed in presence of two witnesses.

37. This witness had further stated that as per information

given by the accused Madhab Chandra Dey, Rs. 30,000/-

was recovered in presence of two witnesses from his bari,

which was kept in polythene. Shaligram Dutta (P.W.-10)

and Duja Pad Dey (P.W.-8) were witnesses of recovery of

seizure ofmoney.Investigating officer has proved the seizure

list of recovery of money from accused Madhab Chandra

Dey,which in his writing and signature and wasmarked as

Ext.-5.P.W.-14 investigating officer further stated that on

23.12.1993, Rs.18,000/- was recovered in presence of

witnesses Ganesh Duta (P.W.-11) and Rajen Dutta (P.W.-

12), from the ventilation of the house of accusedLudka

Kandu.He has proved the seizure list which was marked as

Ext.-5/1.

38. P.W.-14 investigating officer further stated that accused

Rajesh Kumar Dutta was arrested andon his information,

spring knife was recovered and the seized knife was

produced before him in the police station. The seizure list of

the recovered knife was prepared by A.S.I. Suresh Prasad

Singh. The seizure list of the recovered knife was marked as

Ext.-5/2.P.W.-14 investigating officer further stated seal of

the shop of Mathur Chandra Paul was opened and

ornaments found in locker was verified, but, no suspected

ornament was found.

18 2026:JHHC:1652-DB

39. P.W.-15 is Dilip Kumar Deyand he is also seizure list

witness.P.W.-15 had stated in his evidence that police had

seized ornament box and ornaments of gold and silver from

the ornament shop of Mathur Chandra Paulon 27.01.1994.

Seizure was made in his presence and in presence of

Sanatan Dey.P.W.-15 has identified his signature and

signature of Sanatan Dey, on the seizure list, which was

marked as Ext.-1/8 and Ext.-1/9.

40. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual aspect and on the

basis of documents available on record as exhibited and

testimony of the witnesses, this Court has to see as to

whether there is sufficient material available on record in

order to substantiate the alleged offence under sections

302/34 and section 394 of IPC against the appellant.

41. Learned counsel for the appellant has emphasized that

there are vital discrepancies in the testimonies of the

witnesses and all the seizure list witnesses have either

turned hostile or have not supported the prosecution case

and no chain of circumstance is complete ,therefore the

conviction of the present appellant under Sections

302/34and 394 IPC is not sustainable in the eye of law

42. Per contra, the learned Special public prosecutor for the

State has contended that chain of circumstance is

completed and the discrepancies so pointed out by learned

counsel for the appellant are not enough to disbelieve the

prosecution story.

19 2026:JHHC:1652-DB

43. This Court, on the basis of the aforesaid factual aspect vis-

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

proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of the

impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence by

formulating following questions to be answered by this

Court:

(I) Whether seizure list witnesses P.W.-6 and

P.W.-7,who were claimed by the prosecution as

witness of the recoveryof weapon (knife) used

in alleged commission of crime,had not

supported the prosecution case, is enough to

disbelieve the case of the prosecution.

(II) Whether seizure list witnesses P.W.-8,P.W.-

10,P.W.-11 and P.W.-12, as to recovery of

money, allegedto be robbed during the

commission of crime,not supporting the

prosecution case, is enough to disbelieve the

case of the prosecution.

(III) Whether on the basis of the testimony of

witnesses,the present case based on

circumstantial evidence, the chain is being

completed or not?

Re: Issue No.(I) and Issue No. (II)

44. Before delving into the instant issue, it would be purposeful

to mention herein that informant in his fardbeyan had

suspected hand of Gopi Dey, Suvash Ghosal, Ludka Kandu,

20 2026:JHHC:1652-DB

Genda Dhibar and JaideoDhiber in the commission of

crime.

45. Charges under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C. were framed

against the appellant Madhab Chandra Dey and Ludka

Kandu (since dead) including the accused Rajesh Kumar

Dutta. Separate charges were framed against the appellants

Madhab Chandra Dey and Ludka Kandu under section 412

of IPC.

46. In its confessional statement, though not exhibited, accused

Rajesh Kumar Dutta, had stated that accused Ludka Kandu

had given the knife used in the murder of the deceased and

he had thrown the knife in bushes situated to the north of

pond behind the Chandrakant Market.

47. The trial court had acquitted the accused Rajesh Kumar

Dutta on the ground that recovery of knife on his disclosure

from the place pointed out by him has not been proved

beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubt.

48. Appellants Madhab Chandra Dey and Ludka Kandu were

acquitted by the learned trial court for the chargeunder

section 412 of IPC.

49. The learned trial court had convicted appellant Madhab

Chandra Dey, inter alia on the on the ground that Rs.

30,000/- was recovered by the police from backyard of the

house of the appellant.

50. Reverting to the instant issues, we find that in present case

there are three sets of seizure list:

21 2026:JHHC:1652-DB

i. Seizure list Ext.-5/2 as to recovery of

kniferecovered from bushes situated to the north

of pond situated behind the Chandrakant

Market.

ii. Seizure list Ext.-5 as to recovery of money of

Rs.30,000/- recovered from the backyard of

bariof the appellant Madhab Chandra Dey.

iii. Seizure list Ext.-5/1as to recovery of money of

Rs.18,000/-recovered from the room of the

appellant Ludka Kandu.

51. On going through the seizure list Ext.-5/2 as to recovery of

knife, P.W.-6 Arun Chaterjee and P.W.-7 Gour Datta are

seizure list witnesses to the recovery of the said knife.

52. But, P.W.-6 Arun Chaterjee, did not support the

prosecution case and was examined under section 154 of

the Indian Evidence Act.In his cross-examination he had

denied that on 23.12.1993 on saying of the accused Rajesh

Kumar Dutta, police had recovered knife from bushes

situated to the north of pond situated behind the

Chandrakant Market.

53. P.W.-7 Gour Datta also did not support the prosecution

case as he in his examination-in-chief had deposed that on

the saying of darogjeehehad signed on the seizure list and

darogjee had brought the knife from pond and the aforesaid

knife was kept on the table of darogjee. In his cross-

22 2026:JHHC:1652-DB

examination, P.W.-7 Gour Datta, had stated that he had

signed on the seizure list at the police station.

54. Hence, alleged knife said to be used in the commission of

murder of the deceased was not recovered in the presence

of,P.W.-7 Gour Datta, from the bushes situated to the north

of pond situated behind the Chandrakant Market.Therefore,

from the depositions of P.W.-6 Arun Chaterjee and P.W.-7

Gour Datta, who are seizure list witnesses to the recovery of

knife, have not supported the prosecution case and hence,

the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful.

55. Further, ongoing through the seizure listExt.-5, as to

alleged recovery of money of Rs.30,000/- recovered from the

backyard of bariof the appellant Madhab Chandra Deyand

P.W.-8 Duja Pad Dey and P.W. -10 Shaligram Duttaare

seizure list witnesses to the recovery of money from

appellant Madhab Chandra Dey.

56. But P.W.-8 Duja Pad Dey at paragraph -23 of his cross-

examination had stated that he had seen the money at the

police station itself. Hence, from the deposition of P.W.-8

Duja Pad Dey, it is apparent that the aleged money was not

recovered in his presence from the backyard of bariof the

accused/appellant Madhab Chandra Dey.

57. Again, from the evidence of P.W.-10 Shaligram Dutta, it

appears that he was called at the police station and he had

signed on the seizure list at the police Station. Hence, from

the deposition of P.W.-8 is Duja Pad Dey and P.W.-10 are

23 2026:JHHC:1652-DB

Shaligram Dutta, this Court finds that the prosecution has

not been able to prove the recovery of Rs. 30,000/-from

theappellant Madhab Chandra Dey , beyond reasonable

doubt.

58. On going through the seizure list Ext.-5/1, as to recovery of

money of Rs.18,000/-, recovered from the room of the

Ludka Kandu (since dead),we find that P.W.-11 Ganesh

Duta and P.W.-12 Rajesh Dutta, both are seizure list

witness to the recovery of money from appellant Ludka

Kandubut both of the said witnesses had been declared

hostile.

59. At this juncture it would be pertinent to see the judgments

rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court on the issue of hostile

witness. The law is well settled that merely because the

witness is declared as hostile, whole of his evidence is not

liable to be thrown away.

60. In case ofAttar Singh v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 11

SCC 719, Hon‟ble Apex Court held that merely because a

witness becomes hostile it would not result in throwing out

the prosecution case, but the court must see the relative

effect of his testimony. If the evidence of a hostile witness is

corroborated by other evidence, there is no legal bar to

convict the accused.The Hon‟ble Apex Court further held

that testimony of a hostile witness is acceptable to the

extent it is corroborated by that of a reliable witness. It is,

therefore, open to the court to consider the evidence and

24 2026:JHHC:1652-DB

there is no objection to a part of that evidence being made

use of in support of the prosecution or in support of the

accused. Paragraph-14 to 17 of this judgment is quoted

herein below-

“14. We have meticulously considered the arguments

advanced on this vital aspect of the matter on which the

conviction and sentence imposed on the appe llant is

based. This compels us to consider as to whether the

conviction and sentence recorded on the basis of the

testimony of the witness who has been declared hostile

could be relied upon for recording conviction of the

appellant-accused. But it was difficult to overlook the

relevance and value of the evidence of even a hostile

witness while considering as to what extent their

evidence could be allowed to be relied upon and used by

the prosecution. It could not be ignored that when a

witness is declared hostile and when his testimony is

not shaken on material points in the cross-examination,

there is no ground to reject his testimony in toto as it is

well settled by a catena of decisions that the court is not

precluded from taking into account the statement of a

hostile witness altogether and it is not necessary to

discard the same in toto and can be relied upon partly. If

some portion of the statement of the hostile witness

inspires confidence, it can be relied upon. He cannot be

thrown out as wholly unreliable. This was the view

expressed by this Court in Syad Akbar v. State of

Karnataka [(1980) 1 SCC 30 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 59]

whereby the learned Judges of the Supreme Court

reversed the judgment of the Karnataka High Court

which had discarded the evidence of a hostile witness in

its entirety.

15. Similarly, other High Courts in Gulshan

Kumar v. State [1993 Cri LJ 1525 (Del)] as

also Kunwar v. State of U.P. [1993 Cri LJ 3421 (All)] as

also Haneefa v. State [1993 Cri LJ 2125 (Ker)] have held

that it is not necessary to discard the evidence of the

hostile witness in toto and can be relied upon partly. So

also, in State of U.P. v. Chet Ram [(1989) 2 SCC 425 :

25 2026:JHHC:1652-DB

1989 SCC (Cri) 388 : AIR 1989 SC 1543 : 1989 Cri LJ

1785] , it was held that if some portion of the statement

of the hostile witness inspires confidence it can be relied

upon and the witness cannot be termed as wholly

unreliable. It was further categorically held

in Shatrughan v. State of M.P. [1993 Cri LJ 120 (MP)]

that hostile witness is not necessarily a false witness.

Granting of a permission by the court to cross-examine

his own witness does not amount to adjudication by the

court as to the veracity of a witness. It only means a

declaration that the witness is adverse or unfriendly to

the party calling him and not that the witness is

untruthful. This was the view expressed by this Court

in Sat Paul v. Delhi Admn. [(1976) 1 SCC 727 : 1976 SCC

(Cri) 160 : AIR 1976 SC 294]

16. Thus, merely because a witness becomes hostile it

would not result in throwing out the prosecution case,

but the court must see the relative effect of his testimony.

If the evidence of a hostile witness is corroborated by

other evidence, there is no legal bar to convict the

accused. Thus testimony of a hostile witness is

acceptable to the extent it is corroborated by that of a

reliable witness. It is, therefore, open to the court to

consider the evidence and there is no objection to a part

of that evidence being made use of in support of the

prosecution or in support of the accused.

17. While examining the instant matter on the anvil of

the aforesaid legal position laid down by this Court in

several pronouncements, we have noticed that the

support rendered by the daughter Mangibai approving

the incident should be accepted as reliable part of

evidence in spite of she being a hostile witness. The

witness Mangibai's evidence pushes the accused with

his bag to the wall and the accused is obliged to explain

because her evidence shows that the accused was the

only person in the company of the deceased soon before

the death. The defence of the accused that Nagibai's

injury was a result of fall is ruled out by medical

evidence and the details available of the location in the

panchnama of offence. The courts below thus have

rightly drawn some support from the reports of the

26 2026:JHHC:1652-DB

chemical analysis since all the articles of the victims and

clothes of the accused are found having bloodstains of

human Blood Group A. This was in view of the fact that

the results of the analysis for determination of the blood

group of the victim and accused were conclusive when

blood sent in phial was analysed. Thus, the evidence of

the daughter of the deceased coupled with other material

as also evidence of other witnesses i.e. Ramesh,

Khandu, Bhatu and Makhan, provided a comple te chain

and the prosecution successfully proved that the incident

occurred in the manner and the place which was

alleged.”

61. Again, in case of Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi),

(2023) 4 SCC 731 Hon‟ble Apex Court held that even if a

witness is treated as “hostile” and is cross-examined, his

evidence cannot be written off altogether but must be

considered with due care and circumspection and that part

of the testimony which is creditworthy must be considered

and acted upon. Relevant paragraph of this judgment is

quoted herein below-

“87. Therefore, this Court cautioned that even if a

witness is treated as “hostile” and is cross-examined,

his evidence cannot be written off altogether but must be

considered with due care and circumspection and that

part of the testimony which is creditworthy must be

considered and acted upon. It is for the Judge as a

matter of prudence to consider the extent of evidence

which is creditworthy for the purpose of proof of the

case. In other words, the fact that a witness has been

declared “hostile” does not result in an automatic

rejection of his evidence. Even, the evidence of a “hostile

27 2026:JHHC:1652-DB

witness” if it finds corroboration from the facts of the

case may be taken into account while judging the guilt of

the accused. Thus, there is no legal bar to raise a

conviction upon a “hostile witness” testimony if

corroborated by other reliable evidence.”

62. Again, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of C. Muniappan and

Ors v. State of T. N ,(2010) 9 SCC 567, reiterated thatthe

evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded as a

whole, and relevant parts thereof which are admissible in

law, can be used by the prosecution or the

defence.Paragraph 81 to 83of this judgment is quoted

herein below-

“81. It is settled legal proposition that:

“6. … the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be

rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to

treat him as hostile and cross-examined him. The

evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced

or washed off the record altogether but the same can be

accepted to the extent their version is found to be

dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof.”

(Vide Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana

43

, Rabindra

Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa

44

, Syad Akbar v. State of

Karnataka

45

and Khujji v. State of M.P.

46

, SCC p. 635,

para 6.)

82. In State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra

47

this

Court held that (at SCC p. 363, para 7) evidence of a

hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in

favour of the prosecution or the accused but required to

be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of the

28 2026:JHHC:1652-DB

evidence which is consistent with the case of the

prosecution or defence can be relied upon. A similar view

has been reiterated by this Court in Balu Sonba Shinde

v. State of Maharashtra

48

, Gagan Kanojia v. State of

Punjab

49

, Radha Mohan Singh v. State of U.P.

50

,

Sarvesh Narain Shukla v. Daroga Singh

51

and Subbu

Singh v. State

52

.

83. Thus, the law can be summarised to the effect that

the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded as

a whole, and relevant parts thereof which are

admissible in law, can be used by the prosecution or the

defence.”

63. Reverting back to the instant case, we find that out of the

six witnesses who were seizure list witnesses either to the

recovery of knife (P.W.-6 and P.W.-7) or recovery of money

from the appellant(P.W.-8,P.W.-10,P.W.-11 and P.W.-12),

none of the aforesaid witnesses have supported the alleged

recovery of knife from bushes or money from the appellant.

These seizure list witnesses were either declared hostile or

did not support the prosecution case, as discussed in the

preceding paragraphs.

64. Hence, it is considered view of this Court that the

prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable

doubt as same has not been supported by the prosecution

witnesses on the point of alleged seizure of knife from the

bushes and money from the appellant.

29 2026:JHHC:1652-DB

65. Accordingly, the Issue No.(I) and Issue No. (II), has been

answered.

Re: Issue No. (III)

66. The learned trial court had convicted the appellants for

murder of Khenubala Dasi, on the basis of circumstantial

evidence.

67. Before we analyze and appreciate the circumstances that

have weighed with the trial court for convicting the

appellant on the basis of circumstantial evidence, we think

it apposite to refer to certain authorities pertaining to

delineation of cases that hinge on circumstantial evidence.

68. There is no quarrel with the settled position of law that in

the case of circumstantial evidence, the chain should be

complete then only there will be conviction of the concerned

accused person, as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Hanumant son of Govind Nargundlar

vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343 wherein

it has been held that "It is well to remember that in cases

where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the

circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be

drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and

all the facts so established should be consistent only with

the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the

circumstances should be of a concl usive nature and

tendency and they should be such as to exclude every

hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other

30 2026:JHHC:1652-DB

words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as

not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion

consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be

such as to show that within all human probability the act

must have been done by the accused."

69. The same view has been taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court

in Bakhshish Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1971) 3 SCC

182 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the

principle in a case resting on circumstantial evidence is well

settled that the circumstances put forward must be

satisfactorily proved and those circumstances should be

consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the

accused. These circumstances should be of a conclusive

nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude

every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In

other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far

complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a

conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused

and it must be such as to show that within all human

probability the act must have been done by the accused.

70. Thus, it is evident that for proving the charge on the basis

of circumstantial evidence, it would be necessary that

evidence so available must induce a reasonable man to

come to a definite conclusion of proving of guilt; meaning

thereby there must be a chain o f evidence so far it is

complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a

31 2026:JHHC:1652-DB

conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused

and it must be such as to show that within all human

probability the act must have been done by the accused.

71. This Court, after referring the impugned judgment and

adverting to the testimony of the witnesses referred

hereinabove in the preceding paragraphs has found that

Prosecution has completely failed to establish the factum of

alleged recovery of weapon used in the said commission of

crime, as the seizure list witnesses P.W.-6and P.W.-7, as to

recovery to knife, did not support the prosecution case, as

has already been dealt in Issue No. (I) and Issue No. (II).

72. Further, prosecution has completely failed to establish the

recovery of money alleged to be robbed because the seizure

list witnesses P.W.-8, P.W.-10. P.W.-11 and P.W.-12, either

turned hostile or did not support the prosecution case and

the aforesaid fact has also beentaken note by this Court

while answering the Issue No. (I) and Issue No. (II).

73. Again, the ornaments of gold and silver, alleged to be

robbedduring the commission of crime has not been

recovered.In the evidence it has come that ornaments were

sold by the appellant in the shop of Mathur Chandra Paul

at Bankura, but,P.W.-14 investigating officer in his evidence

has specifically statedthat seal of the shop of Mathur

Chandra Paul was opened and ornaments found in locker

were verified, but, no suspected ornaments were found.

32 2026:JHHC:1652-DB

74. On the basis of discussion made hereinabove this Court is

of the considered view that the learned trial court has not

taken the aforesaid aspect while convicting the appellant on

the basis of circumstantial evidenceas chain of

circumstances are not establishedherein to prove the guilt

of appellantdue to failure of the prosecution in establishing

the recovery of knifeand recovery of money and ornaments,

beyond reasonable doubt.

75. Accordingly, the Issue No. (III) is answered.

76. This Court, in view of aforesaid discussion and taking into

consideration the settled position of law that the

prosecution has to prove the charge beyond all reasonable

doubt, is of the view that the prosecution has not been able

to prove the charges said to be proved beyond reasonable

doubt.

77. 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

33 2026:JHHC:1652-DB

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."

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

Krishnegowda& Ors. Vrs. State of Karnataka , (supra),

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 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."

79. 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

34 2026:JHHC:1652-DB

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 no t 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 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. It is the reasonable

doubt which a conscientious judicial mind entertains on

a conspectus of the entire evidence that the accused

might not have 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

afforded 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."

35 2026:JHHC:1652-DB

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

case of Allarakha K. Mansuri v. S tate 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. —"

81. 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 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. ---"

82. This Court, after having discussed the factual aspect and

legal position as discussed hereinabove is of the view that

36 2026:JHHC:1652-DB

the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges

under sections 302/34 and section 394 of IPC against the

appellant beyond all reasonable doubt as such the

impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence

requires interference by this Court.

83. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction dated

20.09.1997 and order of sentence dated 22.09.1997 passed

by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bokaro,

in Sessions Trial No.443 of 1994, is hereby quashed and set

aside.

84. In consequence thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed

and the appellant is hereby acquitted from his criminal

liability and discharged from the liability of bail bonds.

85. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed

of.

86. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court

concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this Judgment.

I Agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)

21

st January , 2026

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi

Sudhir /A.F.R.

Uploaded on 21.01.2026