2026:JHHC:2282-DB

Page 1 of 16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 854 of 2003

[Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence both

dated 03.06.2003, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge

(Fast Track Court-1), Chatra, in Sessions Trial No. 328 of 1994]

1. Pasupati Pandey @ Buchu Pandey, Son of Madan

Pandey, resident of Village – Salaiya, P.S. – Imamganj,

District - Gaya.

2. Bigu Bhuian, Son of Bhagalu Bhuiyan, resident of

Gidha, P.S. – Pratappur, District - Chatra.

… … Appellants

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 Appellants : Mr. Binod Kumar Dubey, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.

…..

JUDGMENT

C.A.V. on 19.11.2025 Pronounced on 28.01.2026

Per Pradeep Kumar Srivastava , J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant criminal appeal is preferred challenging

the conviction and sentence dated 03.06.2003 passed

by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track

Court-1, Chatra in Sessions Trial No. 328 of 1994,

whereby and whereunder, the appellant s have been

held guilty for the offence under Sections 302, 201/34

of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment

for life and rigorous imprisonment for three years

respectively. Both the sentences were directed to run

concurrently.

2026:JHHC:2282-DB

Page 2 of 16

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal as per

fardbeyan of one Ran Bijay Singh dated 21.01.1991 at

about 8:30 hours is that on last Thursday i.e. on

17.01.1991, the brother of the informant namely, Brij

Nandan Singh went outside from the house and till

19.01.1991, he did not return back, then suspicion

arose and family members started searching out. It is

alleged that during course of search, one Kailash

Singh of Village – Mahugain told that informant’s

brother was seen drinking tari in the bagan of Prayag

Pasi at Kalyanpur Aahar. It was told that one Ayodhya

Singh had seen the brother of informant coming back

after consuming tari with one Pashupati Pandey and

Sohrai Bhuiyan of Village Salaiya, P.S. – Imamganj,

District – Gaya. They have also seen Brij Nandan

Singh laying down in courtyard of Prayag Pasi. It is

also alleged that earlier, there was a dispute between

Brij Nandan Singh, brother of informant and Prayag

Pasi, which was settled without lodging any FIR .

Therefore, informant suspects that due to previous

enmity Prayag Pasi along with his associates

Pashupati Pandey @ Bhuchu Pandey and others

might have committed murder of his brother and

concealed the dead body at a secret place.

2026:JHHC:2282-DB

Page 3 of 16

4. On the basis of above fardbeyan (Exhibit-5),

Pratappur P.S. Case No. 04 / 1991 was registered

against the above-named accused persons for the

offence under Sections 302 / 201 read with Section

34 of the I.P.C. After conclusion of investigation,

charge-sheet was submitted for the aforesaid offences.

The case was committed to the court of Sessions,

where S.T. No. 328/1994 was registered and trial

commenced. In course of trial, one co-accused Prayag

Pasi was absconding and his case was separated vide

S.T. No. 328A/1994 and trial proceeded against

present appellants, who have been held guilty and

sentenced as stated above.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously

argued that the appellants have been falsely

implicated merely on the basis of suspicion. They

have no inimical terms with the deceased nor have

any concern with the co-accused Prayag Pasi, against

whom previous dispute has been alleged by the

prosecution. It is further submitted that the

appellants have been convicted only on the basis of

evidence of P.W.-1 Dwarika Singh and P.W. -3

Mosaheb Singh. Virtually these two witnesses are not

eye-witnesses of the occurrence and their testimony

appears to be very unnatural and unworthy of

2026:JHHC:2282-DB

Page 4 of 16

credence. They have claimed to see the accused

persons while fleeing away in the night of 17.01.1991

itself from a distance of 133 ft. in a torch light.

Surprisingly these witnesses have also admitted that

they informed about the occurrence in the evening of

18.01.1991 to police, but no such FIR was lodged at

their instance and they have also admitted that the

informant, who was close door neighbour of

witnesses, was also not informed about the above

occurrence. Therefore, the theory of last seen

propounded by these witnesses is absolutely not

believable and the learned trial court has committed

serious illegality while putting much weightage on the

testimony of aforesaid witnesses. It is further

submitted that no incriminating article connecting the

appellants with the alleged occurrence have been

recovered during investigation and brought on record.

The mischievous plea of last seen, as stated,

afterthought by the witnesses cannot form basis of

their conviction. If the said last seen theory is

excluded from consideration, there remains nothing to

prove the guilt of the appellants. The testimony of

witnesses also does not corroborate from the post -

mortem report of the deceased, wherein cause of

death is opined due to asphyxia caused by

2026:JHHC:2282-DB

Page 5 of 16

strangulation. Although, the purported eye-witness

have stated that the deceased was brutally assaulted

by six persons after tying his hands and hanged on

tree. Therefore, conviction and sentence of the

appellants is fit to be set aside and they deserve to be

acquitted from the charges leveled against them.

6. On the other hand, learned PP refuted the aforesaid

contentions has submitted that the prosecution has

proved the guilt of the appellants beyond all

reasonable doubt. The learned trial court has very

wisely and aptly considered over all aspects of the

case in the light of cogent and reliable evidence of

witnesses. Hence, there is no illegality or infirmity in

the judgment of conviction and sentence of the

appellants, calling for any interference, by way of this

appeal, which is fit to be dismissed.

7. The only point for consideration is “whether the

impugned judgment suffers from any error of law

calling for any interference?”

8. Before imparting our verdict on the above point, we

have to apprise ourselves with prosecution evidence.

9. P.W.-1 Dwarika Singh is a witness of inquest and

proved his signature as Exhibit-1 on the carbon copy

of inquest report. This witness was examined after 10

years of occurrence. According to his evidence, he had

2026:JHHC:2282-DB

Page 6 of 16

gone to the house of Kishore Singh at Village – Jaipur,

where his friend Saheb Singh has told him that

Pashupati Pandey had called upon Brij Nandan Singh

and accompanied with him, but did not return till

today, then he along with Saheb Singh went in search

of Brij Nandan Singh and also met with Pashupati

Pandey @ Bucha Pandey , who told that he has not

come. He informed the villagers and again went to the

house of Prayag Pasi and in his courtyard, there was

crowd of 10-15 persons and six persons out of them

three from one side and three from another side were

pressing neck of Brij Nandan Singh, who had died,

but he identified Prayag Pasi, Pashupati Pandey @

Bucha Pandey and Bighu Bhuiya. He informed the

villagers and again went to the house of Prayag Pasi,

but dead body was not found, then he came back and

on the next day went to police station and dead body

of Brij Nandan Singh was pulled out from a well of

one Hanif Miya.

In his cross-examination, this witness clearly

admits that informant Ran Vijay Singh is gotia

brother, but he did not inform him about the

occurrence. He has not stated before the police that

there was some scuffle and dispute between Prayag

Pasi and Brij Nandan Singh, prior to occurrence. He

2026:JHHC:2282-DB

Page 7 of 16

also admits that he has stated before police as an eye-

witness, but his statement was not recorded. He also

states that the accused persons were bearing sticks

about 3 feet length, which was also thick. He can’t tell

as to which one of the accused persons were pressing

neck of the deceased. Mosaheb Singh was also

present with him. He also admits that he saw the

accused persons in the dark night from a distance of

2 Zarib i.e. 133 ft. when accused persons were

surrounding Brij Nandan Singh. He further states

that dead body was found after two days from a well

situated at a distance of 1 Km from the house of

Prayag Pasi. When the dead body was brought out

from the well, police was not present. Thereafter,

police arrived and inquest report was prepared.

10. P.W.-2 Jai Ram Singh is a hearsay witness, who

came to know about murder of Brij Nandan Singh and

knows nothing about the factual aspect of this case.

11. P.W.-3 Mosaheb Singh has claimed to be another

eye-witness of the occurrence. According to him, in

the month of January, 1991, in the night at about

8:00 P.M., he along with Dwarika Singh (P.W.-1) went

to the house of Prayag Pasi in search of Brij Nandan

Singh where he saw that in the courtyard of Prayag

Pasi Brij Nandan Singh was tied from behind of his

2026:JHHC:2282-DB

Page 8 of 16

both hands and sticks were put on his neck from both

side. He identified Prayag Pasi, Pashupati Pandey @

Bucha Pandey and Bighu Bhuiya in the flash light of

torch. He has further stated that on the same day

morning at about 10:00 AM Pashupati Pandey called

upon Brij Nandan Singh. When he went to the house

of Prayag Pasi, he saw Brij Nandan Singh was at the

verge of death. He also claims to have chased the

accused persons, but they managed to flee away, then

this witness returned to his home and again on the

next morning went to the house of Prayag Pasi where

dead body of Brij Nandan Singh was not found. They

started searching the dead body of Brij Nandan Singh

and ultimately, it was found in a well of Hanif Mian at

Village Gidha. This witness is also neighbor of

informant Ram Vijay Singh, but did not inform him

about the occurrence, which was claimed to have

been seen by him. He also admits that on the same

day itself, he did not inform about above occurrence

at the police station. He also admits that for the first

time he is giving evidence before the Court. He also

admits that the dead body was brought out in

presence of police from the well.

12. P.W.-4 Kailash Singh has claimed to see the

deceased Brij Nandan Singh on 17.01.1991 in the

2026:JHHC:2282-DB

Page 9 of 16

evening in between Village – Gidha and Baraikhap

along with 2-3 persons whom he does not know .

Thereafter, he heard about the murder of Brij Nandan

Singh and his body was found from a well. He has

expressed nothing else within his personal knowledge.

He also admits that his statement was not recorded

by police, hence declared hostile by prosecution.

13. P.W.-5 Ran Bijay Singh (Informant). According to

his evidence, he came to know that his brother had

gone from his house on 17.01.1991. This witness is a

teacher and in the evening, he returned from his

school, then in the night, he came to know from

Dwarika Singh (P.W.-1) and Mosaheb Singh (P.W.-3)

respectively that his brother Brij Nandan Singh is

consuming something and drinking along with his

friends Prayag Pasi and others and also told that he

has seen Prayag Pasi and others are assaulting his

brother Brij Nandan Singh. He went there, but did not

found Prayag Pasi in his house, rather door was

locked. Thereafter, dead body of his brother Brij

Nandan Singh was found in the well of Hanif Mian on

20.01.1991. Thereafter, his fardbeyan was recorded

by police, over which, he has put his signature and he

has proved his signature as Exhibit-2. There is

nothing else in his evidence. Admittedly, this witness

2026:JHHC:2282-DB

Page 10 of 16

is not an eye-witness of the occurrence, rather claims

to have knowledge of the occurrence from P.W.-1 and

P.W.-3, who have also categorically denied that they

have informed to this witness.

14. P.W.-6 Narain Sao has been declared hostile by the

prosecution.

15. P.W.-7 Dr. Nand Kishore Jaiswal has conducted

autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and found

following:-

Ante Mortem:

Ecchymosis of whole left forearm, blackish red in

colour, ecchymosis of whole left palm, blackish red in

colour.

Fracture of lower end of radius and ulna.

Ecchymosis of whole right forearm and whole palm

blackish red in colour.

Fracture of lower end of right radius and ulna.

Ecchymosis on front of left thigh 3” x 2” blackish red.

Swelling and ecchymosis over chin blackish red in

colour 6” x 4” in size.

Swelling and ecchymosis on right side of neck

blackish red in colour extending upto lower portion of

right ear 8” x 4” in size. On reflection of skin, there

2026:JHHC:2282-DB

Page 11 of 16

was subcutaneous hematoma on right side of neck 3”

x 2”. Underlying muscles were haemotised.

Larynx and trachea bruised and haemotised.

There was laceration of coats of carotid vessels of

right side with extravasation of blood in their coats.

Post Mortem:

Rigor mortis absent on both upper and lower limbs

and neck. Body was decomposed and flab smelling.

Blackish discolouration of skin, multiple blabs all over

body with reddish coloured fluid. Peeling of cuticle

were present at places.

Abdomen distended, face swollen.

Both eyes closed, face congested, mouth semi open.

Bloody discharge coming from mouth and nostrils.

Skin of both upper and lower limbs at periphery was

puckered.

Lungs congested and odrmatus.

Right side of heart full of dark fluid blood, left side

empty.

Stomach contained semi digested food materials.

Small intestine distended with gas at places irregular

dark red patches due to putrefaction.

Large intestine full of gas.

2026:JHHC:2282-DB

Page 12 of 16

Spleen congested, soft, pulpy, liver congested both

kidneys congested, bladder empty.

Opinion:

The cause of death was opined due to asphyxia

resulting from strangulation. Time elapsed since

death about 110 hours.

He has proved the post-mortem report as Exhibit-

3.

16. P.W.-8 Kapil Deo Singh is the Investigating Officer of

this case, who has proved the formal FIR as Exhibit-4,

Endorsement on f ardbeyan as Exhibit-5, Inquest

Report of the deceased as Exhibit -6. He received

charge of investigation of this case from S.I.

Sheo Madan Singh on 25.02.1992. He has recorded

statements of witnesses Jai Ram Singh, Smt. Jhalak

Devi and Kailash Singh, Sohrai Bhuiyan. He also

inspected the place of occurrence, which is situated in

between Gidha Salai and Jaipur in the field of Hanif

Mian, wherein a well is also constructed. The dead

body of the deceased was found in this well. He sent

the dead body for post-mortem and after collecting

sufficient evidence, submitted charge sheet against

the accused persons.

Attention of this witness has been drawn towards

the statement of witness Kailash Singh recorded

2026:JHHC:2282-DB

Page 13 of 16

under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., wherein he has not

stated anything as deposed during trial, rather stated

that he found Brij Nandan Singh under intoxicated

state. He can’t tell distance between well situated in

the field of Hanif Mian and the house of Prayag Pasi.

He has also not proved the place of occurrence to be

the house of Prayag Pasi. He has denied his

investigation to be defective.

17. We have gone through the impugned judgment,

wherein the learned trial court has la id much

emphasis upon the evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-3 & P.W.-

4, who have claimed to be eye -witnesses of the

occurrence. From the evidence of P.W.-1 & P.W.-3, it

is crystal clear that they have not informed about the

occurrence to the informant, who is close door

neighbour of them. They also happened to be gotia of

the deceased. On the other hand, informant (P.W.-5)

in his fardbeyan has clearly stated that he came to

know from P.W.-1 & 3 that his brother was seen

drinking tari in the bagan of Prayag Pasi at Kalyanpur

Aahar. It was told that one Ayodhya Singh had seen

the brother of informant coming back after consuming

tari with one Pashupati Pandey and Sohrai Bhuiyan

of Village Salaiya, P.S. – Imamganj, District – Gaya.

They have also seen that Brij Nandan Singh was

2026:JHHC:2282-DB

Page 14 of 16

laying down in courtyard of Prayag Pasi. The evidence

of P.W.-4 Kailash Singh also suffers from material

omissions as is apparent from the evidence of P.W.-8

as discussed above. He has stated nothing as deposed

during trial in his earliest version recorded under

Section 161 Cr.P.C. The cumulative effect of evidence

of P.W.-1, P.W.-3 and P.W. -4 leads towards

conclusion that no credence can be placed upon their

testimony in view of material contradictions and

omissions. The manner in which they have asserted

the happenings of the occurrence and claimed as an

eye-witness did not stand on reason. P.W.-1 says that

he saw six accused persons were surrounding to the

deceased from a distance of 133 ft. in the dark night.

P.W.-3 claims that he along with P.W.-1 have chased

the accused persons about ½ Km, but they succeeded

in fleeing away. In spite of the fact that the dead body

of the deceased was allegedly lying in the house of

Prayag Pasi, they took no pain to woke up the

villagers or inform the brother of the deceased and the

police station, rather returned to their home and went

to sleep. In the next day also, no attempt was taken to

lodge any case when the dead body was

disappeared from the house of Prayap Pasi and lock

was put in his house. Therefore, the evidence of

2026:JHHC:2282-DB

Page 15 of 16

P.W.-1, P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 suffers from serious clouds

of suspicion against them in not disclosing fairly the

incident to the villagers and the police. The

prosecution has also failed to prove any enmity

between the present appellants and the deceased. The

first place of occurrence, as alleged by P.W.-1, P.W.-3

and P.W.04, was also not inspected by the

Investigating Officer (P.W. -8). Moreover, no

incriminating circumstances showing the complicity

of the appellants in the alleged offence of murder has

been collected and brought on record. We further find

that except bald statements of P.W.-1, P.W.-3 and

P.W.-4 that they have seen the appellants while

surrounding the deceased and putting pressure on

his neck by sticks from both side also does not find

corroboration from the post mortem report of the

deceased, wherein no such marks of violence has

been found on the dead body.

18. In view of above glaring infirmities in the prosecution

evidence, we are constrained to hold that the learned

trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence

of witnesses in right perspective and arrived at wrong

conclusion about the guilt of the appellants .

Therefore, there is serious error of law in recording

the guilt of accused persons for the offence of murder

without any cogent and reliable evidence.

2026:JHHC:2282-DB

Page 16 of 16

19. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order is

hereby set aside. This appeal is allowed.

20. The appellants are on bail . As such, they are

discharged from their liability of bail bonds and

sureties are also discharged.

21. Pending I.A., if any stand disposed of.

22. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court

record be sent back to the court concerned for

information and needful.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay , J.)

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi

Dated, the 28

th

January, 2026.

Sunil /N.A.F.R.

Uploaded On : 31/01/2026