2026:JHHC:19184-DB

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 634 of 2024

[Against the judgment of conviction dated 06.04.2024 and order of sentence

dated 10.04.2024 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XV-cum-

Special Judge for Criminal Cases involving Elected MPs / MLAs, Ranchi in S.T.

No. 249/2020 & S.T. No. 389/2021].

------

Paulus Surin, aged about 54 years, Son of Late Joseph Surin, Resident of

Village – Guruirgi, P.O. & P.S. – Bano, District – Simdega (Jharkhand).

.... .... …. Appellant

Versus

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

WITH

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1539 of 2024

Jetha Kachhap, aged about 40 years, Son of Late Johan Kachhap, Resident

of Dumri Gadhi, P.O. & P.S. – Karra, District – Khunti (Jharkhand).

.... .... …. Appellant

Versus

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

------

For the Appellant : Mr. B.M. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate

Mr. Manoj Kumar Choubey, Adv.

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

[In Cr.A. (DB) No. 634/2024]

For the Appellant : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate

For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P.

[In Cr.A. (DB) No. 1539/2024]

PRESENT

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

JUDGMENT

------

CAV On 27/04/2026 Pronounced On 01 / 07 /2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Above criminal appeals are arising out of common judgment and

order of conviction and sentence dated 06.04.2024 and 10.04.2024

2026:JHHC:19184-DB

2

respectively passed by Additional Judicial Commissioner-XV-cum-

Special Judge for Criminal Cases involving Elected MPs/MLAs,

Ranchi in S.T. No. 249/2020 and S.T. No. 389/2021, whereby and

whereunder, the appellant, Paulus Surin has been held guilty for the

offence under Sections 302/34 & 120B of the I.P.C. and sentenced to

undergo imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 25,000/- with

default stipulation and appellant, Jetha Kachhap has been held guilty

for the offence under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 379/34 & 120B of the

I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I.

for life for the offence under Section 302/34 read with Section 120B of

the I.P.C. along with fine of Rs. 25,000/-, R.I. for 07 years along with

fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Sections 307/34 of I.P.C., R.I.

for 02 years for the offence under Section 379/34 of I.P.C. and R.I. for

05 years along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 27

(1) of the Arms Act, with default stipulation. All the sentences were

directed to run concurrently.

Factual Matrix

3. The factual matrix giving rise to these appeals is that on 27.05.2013 at

noon, the informant along with his friends was playing cards near the

library in Village – Trila and his brother Bhushan Singh (since

deceased) was talking to Ram Govind Singh, Devender Singh, Varun

Pradhan and Sanju Singh on the platform (chabutra) adjacent to the

house of Chama Oraon. It is alleged that at about 5:45 P.M., the

informant suddenly heard sound of firing and people started

2026:JHHC:19184-DB

3

scattering hither and thither. The informant saw that PLFI Supremo

Dinesh Gope along with his associates Tilkeshwar Gope, Jetha

Kachhap, Gidan Guria and others were indiscriminately firing with

their AK-47 rifles and other arms upon Bhushan Singh. It is alleged

that at first Tilkeshwar Gope opened fire upon his brother Bhushan

Singh, due to which, he fell down, thereafter, all other accused persons

shot at different parts of body including head to Bhushan Singh, who

died on the spot. It is alleged that miscreants also attempted to shot

the informant while he was in panic situation, but he managed to

enter into his own house and also started firing by his licensee gun in

his defence. In the meantime, police also arrived at the place of

occurrence, then miscreants fled away taking rifle and gun of Bhushan

Singh by riding on 2-3 motorcycles. It is alleged that in the said

occurrence, Bhushan Singh and Ram Govind Singh have been died on

the spot. It is further alleged that a conspiracy was hatched to kill

Bhushan Singh by Torpa MLA Sri Paulus Surin, Laxmi Devi, Chama

Oraon, Minizin Orain, Sunita Orain and Moti Devi because Bhushan

Singh was falsely implicated in a rape case lodged by Sunita Orain

and they were demanding for the arrest of Bhushan Singh by the

police, inspite of his innocence. It is further alleged that all the

conspirators are related to PLFI extremist group. It is further alleged

that the local MLA Paulus Surin used to threaten the deceased on

many occasions to meet him the same consequence as Vijay Munda

2026:JHHC:19184-DB

4

had met and he would be sent to the heaven unless he abstains from

doing police spy.

On the basis of written report of the informant, Karra P.S. Case

No. 27 of 2013 was registered for the offence under Sections 302,

379/34 and 120(B) of the I.P.C., Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section

17 of C.L.A. Act against 10 accused persons.

After conclusion of investigation, charge-sheets were

submitted against the accused persons. Accordingly, after

commitment of the case to the Special Court for MPs / MLAs, five

Sessions Trials i.e. Sessions Trial No. 37/2021, Sessions Trial No.

389/2021, Sessions Trial No. 249/2020, Sessions Trial No. 392 of 2021

and Sessions Trial No. 535 of 2021 were registered and all the Sessions

Trial were amalgamated by the concerned trial court for joint trial.

The accused persons denied from the charges and claimed to

be tried.

4. In course of trial altogether 11 witnesses were examined by the

prosecution. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, following

documentary evidence has been adduced by the prosecution:-

Exhibit-1 : Written Application of Informant.

Exhibit-2 : Signature o Kamayani Singh (P.W.-1) on

statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C.

Exhibit-3 : Signature of Sandhya Devi (P.W. -4) on

statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C.

Exhibit-4 : Signature of Prabhakar Singh (P.W.-6) on

2026:JHHC:19184-DB

5

statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C.

Exhibit-5 : Post mortem report.

Exhibit-6 : Seizure list dated 27.05.2013.

Exhibit-7 : Formal F.I.R.

Exhibit-P-8/

P.W.-10

Application to bring material exhibit before the court.

Exibit-P-9/

P.W.-11

The confessional statement of accused Jetha Kachhap

under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

Material exhibits:

MO-I Six empty cartridges.

MO-II/I Four empty cartridges of .12 bore of Shaktiman

Express.

MO-I/II Eleven empty cartridges of .06 bore.

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

and false implication only on the basis of suspicion. One witness, who

happens to be one of the I.O. of this case Sri Uday Kumar Gupta has

been examined as D.W.-1 on the behalf of accused Paulus Surin

(appellant), who has proved the letter given to the S.P., Khunti as

Exhibit-D-1/D.W.-1.

6. Learned trial court after evaluating the oral as well as documentary

evidence adduced by respective parties, arrived at definite conclusion

about the guilt of the appellants for the offence charged against them

and awarded sentence, as stated above, which has been assailed in these

appeals.

2026:JHHC:19184-DB

6

Submission on behalf of the appellant-Paulus Surin

7. Mr. B.M. Tripathi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant

has raised following points, which vitiates the conviction of the

appellant recorded by learned trial court:-

(i) As a matter of fact, deceased Bhushan Singh was

prosecuted for rape by one Sunita Orain, wherein

due to his influence and muscle power, the said

Bhushan Singh was not being apprehended by

police and the case was being manhandled, inspite

of protest by prosecutrix and her family members

namely, Minzin Oraon, Moti Devi and others, who

were also made accused in this case. The specific

allegation against the appellant was for hatching

conspiracy with the PLFI extremists in causing

murder of the deceased.

(ii) The villagers under the leadership of their popular

MLA Paulus Surin (appellant) were organizing

“Dharna and Gherao” for taking action against

Bhushan Singh in the said rape case.

(iii) The learned trial court has miserably failed to

appreciate that no conspiracy has been proved by

the prosecution against the appellant in eliminating

the deceased and the appellant has no concern or

relation with PLFI organization and nothing has

2026:JHHC:19184-DB

7

been brought on record to prove any connection of

the appellant with the PLFI extremist organization.

(iv) There is no direct evidence except the allegation

of hatching conspiracy proving the involvement of

appellant-Paulus Surin in the alleged occurrence.

Admittedly, his presence and participation in the

alleged crime has not been asserted by the

prosecution.

(v) The learned trial court has committed serious error

of law while placing reliance upon confessional

statement of co-accused Jetha Kachhap (appellant)

recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. without

following the procedural safeguard provided under

Section 164 Cr.P.C. Moreover, the alleged

confessional statement is not of self-inculpatory,

but simple assertion in respect of co-accused Paulus

Surin that he was threatening to deceased to be

killed. Therefore, such type of statement neither can

be used as evidence against the maker of the

confession nor against any other co-accused. Except

the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of co-

accused Jetha Kachhap. The prosecution has

miserably failed to prove any conspiracy and

2026:JHHC:19184-DB

8

previous threatening given by the appellant Paulus

Surin.

(vi) If the trial court has acted upon the statement

under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the appellant – Jetha

Kachhap as confession of his guilt, then he must

have recorded a finding before framing charge that

inspite of confession of the accused, he is

proceeding for trial for the ends of justice. Not only

this, the occurrence took place on 27.05.2013 and

the alleged confessional statement of Jetha Kachhap

was recorded on 20.06.2017 even without any

application by the accused that he voluntarily

desires to make any such statement.

(vii) The Investigating Officers of the case (P.W. -8 &

P.W.-9) have recorded no findings about conspiracy

entered into between the appellant and other co-

accused persons for eliminating the deceased. The

alleged co-conspirators Chama Oraon, Minizin

Orain, Laxmi Devi, Moti Devi and Sunita Orain

have been acquitted by the learned trial court.

Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of

sentence of appellant-Paulus Surin is absolutely illegal and based

upon conjecture and surmises beyond the evidence available on

2026:JHHC:19184-DB

9

record. The appellant deserves acquittal from the charges leveled

against him, allowing this appeal.

Submission on behalf of the appellant-Jetha Kachhap

8. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing for the

appellant-Jetha Kachhap has raised following points objecting his

conviction and sentence:-

(i) The learned trial court has failed to properly

appreciate the evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-4 &

P.W.-6, who have given self-contradictory

statements with material improvement and

exaggerations, who are also interested

witnesses.

(ii) P.W.-2, P.W.-3 & P.W.-5 have been declared

hostile by prosecution and rest of the witnesses

are official witnesses.

(iii) As per cross-examination of main eye-witnesses

P.W.-1, P.W.-4 & P.W.-6, they are not eye-

witnesses of the occurrence, rather, reached at

the place of occurrence after commission of

offence and have not seen any of the miscreants.

(iv) The main allegation of firing is against Dinesh

Gope, Tileshwar Gope, Gidan Guria and others.

2026:JHHC:19184-DB

10

(v) The main eye-witnesses, who were talking with

the deceased at the relevant time of occurrence,

have not supported the prosecution case.

(vi) The learned trial court has committed serious

error of law in admitting in evidence the

statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. of the

appellant as admission of guilt by him, although

there is nothing in the statement showing any

inculpatory part of statement to be considered

against the appellant.

(vii) There is no iota of evidence showing any motive

against the appellant Jetha Kachaap for

eliminating the deceased persons and he has

been acquitted from the charge under Section 17

of C.L.A. Act, therefore, it could not be said that

he has hatched any conspiracy with extremists

PLFI organization to commit murder of the

deceased.

Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of

sentence of the appellant is not warranted under law and liable to be

set aside allowing this appeal.

Submission on behalf of the State

9. On the other hand, learned P.P. and A.P.P. appearing for the State has

controverted the aforesaid points of argument raised on behalf of the

2026:JHHC:19184-DB

11

appellants and has submitted that the learned trial court has very

wisely and aptly considered all aspects of the case in the light of oral

and documentary evidence of prosecution, which proves the charges

leveled against the appellants for hatching conspiracy in crime of

murder of two innocent persons in this case. There is no illegality or

infirmity in the impugned judgment calling for any interference in

these appeals, which are devoid of merit and fit to be dismissed.

10. We have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned

judgment and order in the light of contentions raised on behalf of the

both side.

11. The only point for determination is that “as to whether the impugned

judgment of conviction and order of sentence of appellant is legally

sustainable or not?”.

Analysis, Reasons and Decision:-

12. Before imparting our verdict on the aforesaid points, we have to take

brief resume of the evidence adduced during trial of the case.

13. It appears that altogether 11 witnesses were examined by the

prosecution.

P.W.1-Kamayani Singh is the informant of this case. He has

consistently proved the contents of his written report and stated that

on 27.05.2013, at about 4:45 PM, he along with his friends was playing

cards adjacent to the village chabutra. He has further stated that his

brother Bhushan Kumar Singh (deceased) along with Ram Govind

Singh @ Thibu Singh (deceased), Gajendra Singh (P.W.-2), Sanju

2026:JHHC:19184-DB

12

Singh, Varun Pradhan etc. were sitting on chabutra and talking with

each other, in the meantime, this witness saw that about 4-5

miscreants headed by PLFI Supremo Dinesh Gope and Area

Commander Jetha Kachhap, Sub Zonal Commander Zidan Guria,

Area Commander Tilkeshwar Gope armed with rifles came from the

side of house of Chama Oraon. Just arriving at Village Chabutra,

above accused persons started firing from rifle indiscriminately upon

Bhushan Singh, due to which, he fell down on earth. This witness

raised alarm then accused persons attempted to shot fire upon him

also, but he managed to escape and entered into his own house and

from his roof, he counter fired upon accused persons by his licensee

double barrel gun. The incident was also informed to the police, but

the miscreants managed to flee away on four motorcycles towards

forest area. Thereafter, this witness went to the place of occurrence

and saw his brother Bhushan Singh had sustained several fire arm

injuries and Ram Govind Singh @ Thibu Singh was also lying on earth

sustaining fire arm injuries. Both were found dead. The licensee gun

and pistol of Bhushan Singh were also stolen by the miscreants. This

witness has further stated that on 09.04.2013, he along with his brother

Bhushan Singh, driver Prabhakar Singh, Sanju Singh and Varun

Pradhan went to Torpa for placing order to purchase cement, where

Torpa MLA Paulus Surin along with his supporters abused to

Bhushan Singh and threatened of dire consequences unless he refrains

from communicating the activities of PLFI to the police. He further

2026:JHHC:19184-DB

13

admits that a tribal girl of his village namely Sunita, daughter of

Chama Oraon had lodged a false rape case against Bhushan Singh and

in institution of above case, there was conspiracy in between Laxmi

Devi, Chama Oraon, Minzin Orain and Moti Devi. After high level

enquiry, the case was found false. Since rape case was found to be

false and no action was taken against Bhushan Singh, then prosecutrix

and his family members with assistance of PLFI Supremo Dinesh

Gope and Area Commander Jetha Kachhap, Sub Zonal Commander

Zidan Guria, Area Commander Tilkeshwar Gope hatching conspiracy

with Torpa MLA Paulus Surin have caused murder of his brother

Bhushan Singh. This witness has proved his written report as Exhibit-

1. This witness has also proved his statement under Section 164 of

Cr.P.C. as Exhibit-2.

In his cross-examination, this witness categorically admits that

a meeting was held by Laxmi Devi (co-accused) along with local

villagers of 4-5 Village, 350-400 persons to conduct “Gherao” of police

station in protest of Bhushan Singh, who was not being arrested in the

rape case. It is also admitted that except this meeting, there is no other

basis of conspiracy. This witness also admits that he has always acted

against PLFI extremist group and in the year 2011 for the first time, he

also encountered with the PLFI members at Nagra Forest Area. He

further admits that he saw the accused persons after firing. There was

indiscriminate firing targeting his brother. Therefore, he cannot say as

to whether who started first firing, rather he fled away in his house for

2026:JHHC:19184-DB

14

saving himself, which is situated at a distance of 50 ft. He also admits

that he along with his brother, since the year 2000, communicating to

Police the activities of PLFI in his area.

P.W.2-Gajendra Singh has been declared hostile by the

prosecution. He has simply stated that at the time of occurrence, he

was present in his house, then heard sound of firing, after some time,

he came out and interrogated with some villagers, then he came to

know that Bhushan Singh and Ram Govind Singh have been

murdered. He also saw the dead body of the deceased persons.

P.W.-3-Suresh Singh is son of one of the deceased – Ram

Govind Singh. This witness has also been declared hostile by the

prosecution. According to his evidence on the date and time of

occurrence, he had gone to market and while he was returning from

market and reached near the Sotia Basti, then a boy disclosed him

about murder of his father.

P.W.-4 – Sandhya Devi is the wife of the deceased Bhushan

Singh. According to her evidence, at the time of occurrence, she was in

her house, which is situated at a distance of 50 meters from the place

of occurrence. After hearing sound of firing, she came out of her house

and when she reached near the Chabutra, she saw the dead body of

her husband Bhushan Kumar Singh and one Ram Govind Singh. The

extremists also started firing upon her, but due to fear, she along with

her brother-in-law Kamayani Singh (P.W.-1) went inside the house.

Her brother-in-law was firing from the roof against the extremists, but

2026:JHHC:19184-DB

15

the miscreants taking rifle and gun of her husband fled away. She has

also stated that at the time of occurrence at 5:30 to 5:45 P.M. her

husband was sitting along with some villagers and Ram Govind Singh

on Chabutra and a tempo was also standing there wherein Varun

Pradhan and Sanju Singh were boarding. Her brother-in-law were also

playing cards with them. In the meantime, four extremists under the

leadership of PLFI Supremo Dinesh Gope, Tilkeshwar Gope, Jetha

Kachhap and Jidan Guriya came towards the house of Chama Oraon

and started firing upon her husband. The motive behind the

occurrence has been alleged that on 09.04.2013 in a cement shop

situated in Village – Torpa, her husband was threatened by Torpa

MLA Paulus Surin saying that he is police spy and indulged in arrest

of several PLFI members. Paulus Surin also forbade her husband from

doing police Mukhbiri, otherwise he will be killed. She has also

admitted that her husband was falsely implicated in rape case by

Chama Oraon through his daughter. Although this witness claimed to

identify the accused persons behind dock. She further admits that no

incident of threatening her husband took place in her presence, rather

it was communicated to her by the husband and the photographs of

accused persons were also shown on the mobile phone, which was

taken away by the accused persons.

In her cross-examination, she also admits that her husband has

disclosed her about previous enmity with members of PLFI

organization. She has denied the suggestion of defence that her

2026:JHHC:19184-DB

16

husband was indulged in wrongful activities and developed enmity

with P.L.F.I. group, therefore, social workers were abusing and

protesting against him and due to that reason, she has falsely

implicated the accused persons.

P.W.-5 Tapeshwar Singh has been declared hostile by the

prosecution. He has admitted that on the date of occurrence, he was

not present in the Village, rather had gone to his sasural. He came to

know about the murder of Bhushan Singh and Ram Govind Singh

later on.

P.W.-6 Prabhakar Kumar Singh @ Thiku Singh is a Deed

Writer, Resident of Upper Bazar, Pyada Toli, Ranchi. According to his

evidence, on 27.05.2013 in the evening, he has gone to Village – Sisai

where he received telephonic information that Bhushan Singh and

Ram Govind Singh have been murdered. He was also working as a

driver of Maruti Van belonging to Bhushan Singh. He has further

stated that on 09.04.2013, he along with Bhushan Singh, Kamayani

Singh, Varun Pradhan and Sanju Singh had gone to Torpa for placing

order for purchasing cement, where Torpa MLA Paulus Surin started

abusing to Bhushan Singh and threatened of dire consequences if he

does not abstain from police mukhbiri. He has also proved his

signature on the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as Exhibit-4.

P.W.-7 DR. Padam Prakash Sah has conducted autopsy on the

dead body of the deceased Bhushan Kumar Singh and found

following:-

2026:JHHC:19184-DB

17

Internal Injury :

(i) One oval wound on the back of right forearm, margin of

wound is inverted size 0.5 inch in diameter this is entry

wound of bullet no. 1. Another one lacerated wound size 3x2

inch into bond deep on front of right forearm. Both wound is

communicating to each other. This wound is exist wound of

bullet no. 1. There is fracture of right radius bone.

(ii) One oval wound in between both eyebrows margin of the

wound is inverted size 0.5 inch in diameter, this is entry

would of bullet no. 2. Another one lacerated wound size 2x1

inch into bond deep over occiput of skull. Both wound is

communicating to each other. This wound is exit wound of

bullet no. 2. There is fracture of skull bone and brain matter

scattered over occipital area of skull.

(iii) One oval wound size 0.75 inch in diameter over right side of

the neck. This is entry wound of bullet no. 3 because margin

of wound is inverted. Another one lacerated wound size 2x1

inch into bond deep over right temporal reason of scalp.

Both wound is communicating to each other. This is exit

wound of bullet no. 3. There is fracture of right temporal

wound.

(iv) One oval wound size 0.5 inch in diameter on upper and of

left forearm margin wound of the inverted this is entry

wound of bullet no. 4. Another one cruciate wound size 1

2026:JHHC:19184-DB

18

inch in diameter over back below left scapula. Margin of

wound is everted this is exit of wound bullet no. 4. Both is

communicating to each other. There is fracture of left

scapula.

(v) One oval wound size 0.5 inch in diameter over back near left

hip bone margin of the wound is inverted this is wound of

bullet no. 5. Another one lacerated wound size 2x1 inch into

bone deep over anterior side of left thigh margin of the

wound everted. This is exit of wound of bullet no. 5. Both is

communicating to each other and there is fracture of left

femur.

(vi) One oval wound size 0.75 inch in diameter over back near

right hip bone margin of the wound is inverted this is entry

wound of bullet no. 6. Another one lacerated wound size

2x1inch into bone deep over right thigh near scotum, margin

of the wound is enverted. This is exit of wound of bullet no.

6. Both wound is communicating each other. Insisting is

coming out through the wound.

(vii) One oval wound size 0.75 inch in diameter over anterior side

of the right leg margin of the wound is inverted this is entry

of wound of bullet no. 7. Another one lacerated wound size

1xlinch over back of right leg. Margin of the wound is

everted. This is exit wound of bullet no. 7. Both wound is

communicating to each other.

2026:JHHC:19184-DB

19

(viii) One oval wound size 0.5 inch in diameter over anterior side

of the left leg margin of the wound is inverted this is entry of

wound of bullet no. 8. Another one lacerated wound size

3x2inch over back of left leg margin of the wound is everted.

This is exit wound of bullet no. 8. Both wound is

communicating to each other.

(ix) One oval wound size 0.75 inch in diameter over dorsum of

foot near left big toe. Margin of the wound is in inverted.

This is entry wound of bullet no. 9. Another lacerated wound

size 3x2 inch over sole of the left foot with fracture of all four

lateral toes. This is exit wound of bullet no.9. Both wound is

communicating to each other.

Opinion

1. The above noted injures are antemortem in nature, caused by the

fire arm fired from distance shot.

2. Cause of death: Head Injury and shock due to haemorrhage.

3. Times elapsed since death in between 12:00 hrs to 24:00 hrs from the

time of postmortem examination.

This witness has conducted postmortem of the deceased and

the report was prepared in his own hand writing and same bears his

signature with seal. This witness has proved post-mortem report,

which is marked as Ext.-5.

P.W.-8 S.I. Subh Chandra Jha is the first I.O. of this case.

According to his evidence, after receiving the charge of investigation

2026:JHHC:19184-DB

20

of this case, he visited the place of occurrence and prepared inquest

report of two dead bodies. He has also proved the seizure list (Exhibit-

6) prepared by the then Officer-in-Charge, Bindeshwari Das in

presence of witnesses. He has proved the formal FIR as Exhibit-7. He

recorded the re-statement of the informant and inspected the place of

occurrence. The first place of occurrence is situated in Village – Tirla

near Village Library Pucca Chabutra. Just adjacent to the Chabutra

towards south, there was PCC road where dead bodies of Bhushan

Singh and Ram Govind Singh were found, who were killed by

extremists using fire arm. The second place of occurrence is house of

Bhushan Singh, made of brick and cement consisting of two storied.

The second storied was half built. On the date of occurrence, the

extremists also fired upon the house of deceased Bhushan Singh and

there was mark of holes of pellet on the wall. There was hole in the

main gate also. Scorpio vehicle was also damaged by firing. He

interrogated with witnesses Sandhya Devi, Sanju Singh and thereafter,

he was transferred and further charge of investigation was handed

over to the then Officer-in-Charge Bindeshwari Das.

In his cross-examination, he has clearly admitted that the

informant in his statement has stated about some scuffle and

threatening ensued between the deceased Bhushan Singh and MLA

Paulus Surin on 09.04.2013 at Torpa Cement Shop, but in this

connection, he has conducted no investigation. He has also failed to

state that any Gherao of police station was committed by Paulus Surin

2026:JHHC:19184-DB

21

and other villagers protesting the inaction in rape case against

Bhushan Singh.

P.W.-9 S.I. Chandrabhan Ram is the second I.O. of this case.

According to his evidence on 08.06.2013 further charge of

investigation of Karra P.S. Case No. 27 of 2013 was handed over to

him by the then Officer-in-Charge, Bindeswari Das. He got recorded

the statement of witnesses Kamayani Singh, Sandhya Devi, Varun

Pradhan, Prabhakar Singh and Sanju Singh under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

and he also recorded statement of Prabhakar Singh. He has also

obtained warrant of arrest and thereafter process under Sections 82/83

Cr.P.C. against the accused persons Dinesh Gope, Tilkeshwar Gope,

Jetha Kachhap, Zidan Guria, whose investigation were continued and

due to transfer, he handed over further charge of investigation to the

then Officer-in-Charge. Admittedly, he has conducted no considerable

part of investigation.

P.W.-10 ASI Sundar Hembram has produced the seized

materials of this case as per the order of Officer-in-Charge. He has

proved the typed letter of Officer-in-Charge Pankaj Kumar as Exhibit-

P-8/P.W.-10. The seized materials were sealed in a white cloth bearing

mark of Karra P.S. Case No. 27 of 2013, M.R. No. 13/2013, which was

opened in presence of counsel for both parties. From the above, sealed

cloth, six cartridges having mark Shaktiman Express Long Rang, 70

mm, loaded with Smokeless Powder and Imported primer of 12 bore

2026:JHHC:19184-DB

22

and 04 empty cartridges of 6 bore were produced from a plastic bag

and marked exhibit as M.O.-I, M.O.-I/I & M.O. -I/II.

In his cross-examination, this witness admits that in the sealed

white cloth, there is no signature of any police officer and seal of

police station as well as malkhana number as well as signature of

witnesses. None of the empty cartridges bears the case number and

signature of police officer.

P.W.-11 Ravi Prakash Tiwari is the then Judicial Magistrate,

1

st Class, Civil Court, Khunti, who has recorded the statement of

accused Jetha Kachhap under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which is proved as

Exhibit-P-9/P.W.-11.

In his cross-examination, this witness has expressed his no

knowledge as to whether the accused was produced from police

custody or was remanded from jail custody at the time of recording

his statement. He has no knowledge as to after how many days of the

occurrence, the statement of accused was recorded under Section 164

Cr.P.C., but he admits that it was recorded on 20.06.2017.

He has denied the suggestion of defence that he has not

recorded the statement of accused in strict compliance with the

provisions of Section 164 Cr.P.C.

14. On the other hand, the case of defence is denial from occurrence and

false implication without any reasonable cause. However, one witness

has been examined by the defence namely, Uday Kumar Gupta (D.W.-

1). He happens to be third Investigating Officer in this case, who

2026:JHHC:19184-DB

23

received charge of investigation on 06.11.2016. According to his

evidence, the accused Jetha Kachhap was remanded in this case on

22.05.2017 from another case. After taking permission from the court on

his written application, he recorded the statement of Jetha Kachhap at

Hotwar Jail on 12.06.2017. He also got recorded the statement of Jetha

Kachhap under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 20.06.2017 with the permission of

the court on his application dated 14.06.2017, but this fact is not

mentioned in the case diary.

In his cross-examination, he admits that after perusal of previous

case diary, he found that charge sheet has been submitted against

Dinesh Gope, Tilkeshwar Gope, Zidan Guria, Krishna Gope and

supplementary investigation was continued against Laxmi Devi, MLA

Paulus Surin, Chamma Oraon, Minzin Orain, Sunita Orain, Moti Devi

and an application has also filed for remand of accused Jetha Kachhap

from another case, who is in custody in connection with Dhurwa P.S.

Case No. 159 of 2014. He has also recorded the statement of witness

Binod Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and also got recorded the

statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before Magistrate. He submitted

charge sheet against accused Jetha Kachhap on 17.08.2017 continuing

investigation against rest accused persons. He has also interrogated with

witness Sandhya Devi, wife of deceased Bhushan Kumar Singh on

04.10.2017, who disclosed that her husband was implicated falsely in a

rape case, wherein he has also filed an application before several

authorities about false implication of the accused as well as

2026:JHHC:19184-DB

24

apprehension of murder at the hands of MLA Paulus Surin. In this

connection, he also went to the office of Police Inspector Torpa and

perused the documents concerning Karra P.S. Case No. 41/11 registered

under Section 376 of the I.P.C. against Bhushan Kumar Singh and found

that one application bearing signature of Bhushan Kumar Singh vide

Memo No. 1118/11 dated 29.06.2011 was found wherein it was informed

by the deceased Bhushan Kumar Singh to Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Khunti that he is apprehending danger of his life at the hands of

MLA Paulus Surin, Mukhiya Laxmi Devi and others. This letter has

been marked as D-1/DW-1. He has also filed an application before the

court for remanding the non-F.I.R. accused Lakhan Gope in this case on

10.07.2018. Accused Paulus Surin was granted bail in this case, then he

recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. with the permission of

Court. After completion of investigation, he submitted charge sheet

against accused Paulus Surin and Lakhan Gope, continuing

investigation against remaining accused persons. Thereafter, he was

transferred and handed over the investigation to Officer-in-Charge.

15. From the testimony of ocular witnesses, as discussed above, following

facts are emanating.

(i) As per written report (Exhibit-1) of the informant Kamayani Singh

(P.W.-1) on 27.05.2013 at about 4:45 P.M., while his brother

Bhushan Singh sitting on Village Chabutra situated near the

house of Chama Oraon along with co-villagers Devendra Singh,

Varun Pradhan, Sanju Singh and Ram Govind Singh were talking

2026:JHHC:19184-DB

25

and informant was playing cards with his friends near the said

Chabutra, then they heard sound of firing and saw that PLFI

Supremo Dinesh Gope and other PLFI members Tilkeshwar Gope

@ Rajesh Gope, Jetha Kachhap and Gidan Guria were firing from

AK-47 riffle indiscriminately upon Bhushan Singh. The first firing

was opened by Tilkeshwar Gope. The other persons talking with

Bhushan Singh fled away due to fear except Ram Govind Singh,

who also sustained fire arm injuries and died at the spot along

with Bhushan Singh. The informant in his self-defence entered

into his house and from the rooftop of his house started firing

upon the accused persons, then they fled away. There is allegation

that appellant Paulus Surin under the conspiracy with Chama

Oraon, Minzin Orain, Sunita Orain, Moti Devi and Laxmi Devi

(Mukhiya) were threatening to kill the deceased Bhushan Singh

implicating him in a false rape case.

(ii) The informant has been examined as P.W.-1, wherein for the first

time, he has added new story that on 09.04.2013, he along with his

elder brother Bhola Singh (deceased), Prabhakar Singh, Sanju

Singh and Varun Pradhan went to Village Torpa for placing order

for cement, where Paulus Surin (appellant) was also present, who

threatened Bhushan Singh to be killed as like Vijay Munda, unless

he should abstain from giving information to police about

activities of PLFI members.

2026:JHHC:19184-DB

26

In cross-examination, P.W.-1 has categorically admitted that

he saw accused persons after firing. He can’t tell who shot first

fire, but all accused persons were indiscriminately firing against

his brother Bhushan Singh. P.W.-1 has also not seen any of the

PLFI members after first encounter in 2011 at Nagra Forest Area.

P.W.-1 admits that they are indulged in giving information to

police about activities of extremists since the year 2000.

(iii) P.W.-4, who happens to be wife of the deceased Bhushan Singh

has admitted in her cross-examination that at the time of

occurrence, she was in her house. She heard 1-2 sound of firing

then proceeded from her house towards place of occurrence,

which is situated at the distance of 50 meter from her house. She

was never acquainted with the accused persons prior to

occurrence. She has taken plea that her husband had old mobile

phone (key pad model) and several photos were stored, which

were shown to her by her husband. Hence, she has taken the

name of accused persons Dinesh Gope, Jetha Kachhap, Tilkeshwar

Gope, Zidan Guria, who fired upon her husband and Ram Govind

Singh, who died on the spot.

P.W.-4 has also admitted that her husband was police spy.

Hence, he was threatened by MLA Paulus Surin to be killed. Her

husband was falsely implicated in rape case by the daughter of

Chama Oraon in conspiracy with Paulus Surin.

2026:JHHC:19184-DB

27

(iv) P.W.-6 Prabhakar Kumar Singh @ Tinku Singh is the driver of

vehicle owned by deceased Bhushan Singh. Admittedly, this

witness was not present at the place of occurrence on the relevant

date and time and he has been simply produced for proving

threatening extended by appellant Paulus Surin to the deceased

Bhushan Singh on 09.04.2013 at Cement Shop situated in Village –

Torpa in presence of this witness. He also admits that in

connection with above threatening, no case was lodged and no

complaint was made to police or any other authority.

(v) Exhibit-D-1 proved by D.W.-1 S.I. Uday Kumar Gupta, who

happens to be one of the Investigating Officer in this case. In

course of investigation, he inspected the record of Karra P.S. Case

No. 41/2011, registered under Section 376 of I.P.C. against

deceased Bhushan Singh, wherein a Letter Momo No. 1118/2011

dated 29.06.2011 was found in the office of Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Torpa. This letter is in respect of

threatening given to Bhushan Singh by the appellant Paulus

Surin, Village Mukhiya Laxmi Devi and Others showing

apprehension of death at the hands of above persons to Bhushan

Kumar Singh.

(vi) The entire conspectus of the case is centered round on the

evidence of P.W.-1 informant-cum-brother of the deceased

Bhushan Kumar Singh. There are no other eye-witness of the

occurrence. The trend of evidence given by P.W.-1 also suffers

2026:JHHC:19184-DB

28

from material improvement as regards identity of accused

persons, who fired upon the deceased. He was not acquainted

with the accused persons prior to occurrence. P.W.-4 & P.W.-6 are

also not eye-witnesses. Other co-accused namely, Krishna Mahto,

Minzin Orain, Sunita Orain and Moti Devi jointly tried with the

present appellant have been extended benefit of doubt and

acquitted from the charges under Section 302/307/379/34 & 120B

of the I.P.C., under Section 27 of Arms Act and under Section 17 of

C.L.A. Act.

(vii) It is admitted case of prosecution that the deceased was murdered

by extremists, who was indulged since the year 2000 in furnishing

information against extremists to the police.

(viii) The deceased was also accused in rape case bearing Karra P.S.

Case No. 41 of 2011, therefore, there was resentment in the

villagers and local female folk due to non-arrest and any

substantive action against the accused by the police, which lead to

gheroa of the police station by Village Mukhiya Laxmi Devi and

other social workers like Moti Devi along with 250-300 persons.

The local MLA Paulus Surin (appellant) was also instrumental in

favour of action to be taken against Bhushan Singh, who was

accused of serious offence of rape.

(ix) The threatening given to the deceased by appellant Paulus Surin

on 09.04.2013 at Cement Shop situated in Village-Torpa has not

been proved by any independent witness. The Investigating

2026:JHHC:19184-DB

29

Officer has also not interrogated with the Cement Shop Dealer or

any other local persons adjacent to the shop. This fact was brought

on record as improvement in earlier versions. Similar ly

threatening letter D-1 was also of the year 2011, when the

deceased Bhushan Kumar Singh was already accused in rape case.

Therefore, the alleged threatening does not bear any connection

with the present incident.

(x) The prosecution case as regards conspiracy is based upon simple

suspicion and no concrete facts have been brought on record

proving any conspiracy hatched by appellant with any other co-

accused persons as leveled in the FIR namely, Minzin Orain,

Sunita Orain, Chama Oraon, Laxmi Devi. Moreover, the co-

conspirator as alleged by the prosecution has been acquitted from

the charges leveled against them. Therefore, the appellant alone

cannot be attributed entering into any conspiracy with himself, in

absence of any other person.

(xi) P.W.-8 S.I. Subh Chandra Jha, the first I.O. of the case has proved

about two places of occurrence, the first place of occurrence is the

PCC road situated near the Village – Chabutra and Library where

dead body of Bhushan Singh and Ram Govind Singh was found.

It was alleged that PLFI extremists have murdered the deceased.

At the distance of 50 yards from the first place of occurrence, the

house of deceased Ram Govind Singh is situated. At a distance of

25 yards house of accused Chama Oraon is situated.

2026:JHHC:19184-DB

30

The second place of occurrence is the pucca house of deceased

Bhushan Singh made of brick and cement, two storied house,

having main door towards west. He also noticed in the left gate of

the house mark of two holes caused by gun shot and in right door,

one mark of hole by bullet was found and on the wall of the house

35 marks of firing were found. Scorpio vehicle was also damaged

by fire arm.

(xii) It is admitted by P.W.-1 and P.W.-4 that their house was situated

at a distance of 50 yards from the first place of occurrence.

(xiii) The claim of informant (P.W.-1) that he was present and playing

cards with his friends does not appears to be convincing in view

of the fact that none of his friends, who were indulged in playing

cards with him, have been named in the F.I.R. and no such

witness has been examined by prosecution to corroborate the

presence of the informant near the Village Library. The claim of

presence of the informant also appears to be doubtful near the

Library in view of the fact that he himself admits that

indiscriminating firing was also opened against him, but he did

not sustained any injury, rather rushed towards his home, which

is at a distance of 50 yards, particularly in view of the fact that 35

marks of firing on the wall of his house was found. The main gate

along with Scorpio Vehicle were damaged by indiscriminate

firing. Under such circumstances, safe fleeing into the house by

the informant is completely impossible. The factual scenario

2026:JHHC:19184-DB

31

indicates that the informant himself was in the house along with

his sister-in-law (P.W.-4) and after hearing sound of firing, he

went of his roof top from where he started firing against the

accused persons.

(xiv) The appellant Jetha Kachhap was remanded in this case from

another case i.e. Dhurwa P.S. Case No. 159 of 2014 through Video

Conferencing on 22.05.2017. Thereafter, his statement under

Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded, which does not indicate that he

himself was involved in firing upon the deceased persons, rather

he along with co-accused Paulus Surin were standing at some

distance. His statement also shows that Paulus Surin has

threatened to eliminate the deceased Bhushan Singh because he

was police spy. Therefore, the statement of accused Jetha Kachhap

under Section 164 Cr.P.C. cannot be said to be confessional

statement in strict sense as it appears to be exculpatory in nature.

Moreover, he was brought by police force for recording his

statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and on the same day, his

statement was recorded without providing any opportunity to the

accused to make confessional statement after considering its effect

in cool mind.

16. We have given thoughtful consideration towards the above aspects of

the case and also gone through the impugned judgment along with

record of the case and other materials available on record.

2026:JHHC:19184-DB

32

17. It appears that the learned trial court has heavily relied upon the

evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-4 and P.W.-6 as material witnesses of

occurrence. Out of them, P.W.-1 & P.W.-4 have been considered as eye-

witnesses of the occurrence, who have given vivid description of the

occurrence. The learned trial court has recorded findings that genesis,

manner and place of occurrence has been categorically proved by P.W.-1

and corroborated by P.W.-4. The involvement of appellant Jetha

Kachhap and Paulus Surin has been proved by aforesaid witnesses as

well as Investigating Officer S.I. Uday Kumar Gupta by proving Letter

Memo D-1. The statement of accused Jetha Kachhap recorded under

Section 164 Cr.P.C. has also been proved by P.W.-11, Ravi Prakash

Tiwari, the then Judicial Magistrate, 1

st Class, Civil Court, Khunti

showing involvement of appellants hatching conspiracy against the

deceased and in pursuance of previous threatening murder of the

deceased has been committed.

18. We further find that the learned trial court has ignored the materials

elicited during cross-examination of P.W.-1 & P.W.-4, who claims to be

eye witnesses of the occurrence. Admittedly they do not appear to be

eye-witnesses of the occurrence, rather they were present in their own

house and after hearing the sound of firing, the informant went over the

roof top of his house and started firing. The extremists have also

indiscriminately fired on his house causing severe damage to the wall,

gate and vehicle. The claim of informant that indiscriminate firing was

going on against him cannot be believed by any stretch of imagination.

2026:JHHC:19184-DB

33

The statement of the accused appellant Jetha Kachhap is also of no

consequence being as exculpatory in nature and disowned any liability

and participation in firing against the deceased. The prosecution has

also not been able to prove the previous enmity or any kind of

threatening given to the deceased by the appellants. The factum of

threatening dated 09.04.2013 has not been proved by any concrete

evidence and also finds no corroboration from any independent source

except bald statement of the informant and his henchmen. Similarly, the

letter D-1 informing about threatening is also stale one and having no

casual connection with the occurrence of this case.

19. In our considered view, the learned trial court has miserably failed to

properly appreciate the evidence of witnesses in right perspective in the

light of materials elicited in their cross-examination and other attending

circumstances proved by the Investigating Officer regarding place of

occurrence and firing by the extremists on the house of the deceased.

The claim of identification of the present appellants as perpetrator in the

alleged crime has also not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt.

20. In view of the above discussions and reasons, we are constrained to held

that the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the

appellants suffers from serious error of law and is based beyond the

weight of evidence available on record, which is hereby set aside and

the appellants are acquitted from the charges leveled against them.

21. Accordingly, both these appeals are allowed.

2026:JHHC:19184-DB

34

22. The appellants are in jail custody, therefore, they are directed to be

released forthwith, if not, wanted in any other case.

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

24. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be sent back

to the court concerned through FAX/E-mail for information and

needful.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi

Date: 01 /07/2026

Sunil/- N.A.F.R.

Uploaded on : 01/07/2026