2026:JHHC:5618-DB

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.678 of 2019 P a g e 1 |17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 678 of 2019

……

[Against the Judgment of conviction dated 04.04.2019 and order of

sentence dated 12.04.2019, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-

XIV, Hazaribagh , in Sessions Trial No.573 of 2013]

……

Prem Ram @ Prem Ravidas, aged about 38 years, S/o Late Banshi

Ram, R/o Lupung, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Distt.-Hazaribagh.

.... …. Appellant

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

.... .... Respondent

……

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

……

For the Appellants : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Prasad, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam, A.P.P.

……

C.A.V. on 12.01.2026 Pronounced on 25.02.2026

Per Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. We have already heard Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Prasad, learned

counsel for the appellant and Mr. Fahad Allam, learned A.P.P.

appearing for the State.

2. Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of

conviction dated 04.04.2019 and order of sentence dated

12.04.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge - XIV,

2026:JHHC:5618-DB

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.678 of 2019 P a g e 2 |17

Hazaribagh in S.T. No.573 of 2013, whereby and whereunder the

appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Section 302 of

the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous

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

stipulation.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the informant's

daughter Suma Devi, aged about 30 years (since deceased), was

married with Prem Ram (appellant) about 12 years ago according

to Hindu rites and rituals. After marriage, Soma Devi started

residing at her matrimonial home along with her husband and

other family members. It is alleged that out of their wedlock, both

were blessed with three children namely Shital Ravidas, aged

about 10 years, Karan Ravidas, aged about 7 years and Kumkum

Ravidas, aged about 4 years. It is alleged that since two years ago,

there was very tense relationship between Suma Devi and her

husband Prem Ravidas. The reason was that the husband Prem

Ravidas (appellant) was suspecting the fidelity/character of his

wife and was apprehensive that his wife is living an adulterous

relationship with another boy. In this connection, Panchayati was

also convened thrice, where Prem Ram was warned against

suspecting the fidelity of his wife without any cogent reasons and

2026:JHHC:5618-DB

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.678 of 2019 P a g e 3 |17

further warned not to consume liquor. It is alleged that on

04.07.2013 at about 04:00 a.m. in morning, the informant was

communicated through phone call that Prem Ram has committed

murder of Suma Devi in the last night by assaulting her through

axe. The informant along with other family members went to the

matrimonial home of her daughter and found dead body lying in a

room and all the three children were crying. She noticed serious

injury on the back of her head due to which she died. Informant's

eldest grand-daughter (natin) Shital disclosed that her father had

inflicted axe blow and thereby caused murder of her mother. She

also disclosed about participation of brother of Prem Ram and his

wife Sarita Devi also in commission of the alleged murder. After

the occurrence, all the above three persons absconded from the

house.

On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant Malti Devi,

Kaktamsandi P.S. Case No.142 of 2013 dated 04.07.2013 was

registered for the offence under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C.

against the above named three accused persons.

4. In the course of investigation, present appellant Prem Ram was

arrested and charge-sheet was submitted against him for the

offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. continuing the

investigation against the other accused persons. The case was

2026:JHHC:5618-DB

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.678 of 2019 P a g e 4 |17

committed to the Court of Sessions where the accused appeared

and denied from the charge levelled against him and claimed to be

tried. After conclusion of trial, impugned judgment and order has

been passed.

5. Learned counsel for appellant assailing the impugned judgment

and order has argued that all the witnesses examined in this case

appears to be interested witnesses and no eye witness has been

examined excluding the tutored child witness P.W.15. Prosecution

story does not find corroboration from any independent source.

The prosecution has failed to bring on record any link evidence

against the appellant which is evident from the evidence of

Investigating Officer that weapon used in commission of crime,

i.e., the axe was not seized and blood stained clothes of the

deceased along with blood stained soil were also not collected

during investigation. It is further submitted that out of 16

witnesses examined in this case, five witnesses have been

declared hostile by the prosecution and P.W.5 Dr. Kapil Deo

Prasad Singh, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the

deceased, has found single sharp cut injury which may be caused

by sharp cutting object like tangi and also admitted that such

injury may be caused by fall on sharp object. No other injury was

found on the dead body of the deceased. It is further stated that at

2026:JHHC:5618-DB

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.678 of 2019 P a g e 5 |17

the time of alleged occurrence, the appellant was under

intoxicating state by consuming liquor and was not capable of

knowing the nature of his act for that he is doing is either wrong

or contrary to law. The appellant was himself examined as a

witness (D.W.1) and has admitted in clear terms that his wife was

having an illicit relationship with one Laxman Ram of his

mohalla. Therefore, frequent altercation and verbal abuse were

going on between husband and wife and due to anger his wife has

been died but how she has sustained injuries was not known to the

accused. The learned trial court has wrongly shifted the burden of

proof against the appellant/accused invoking the provision under

Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In spite of the fact that no

foundational facts to invoke the provision of Section 106 of the

Evidence Act have been brought on record and proved by the

prosecution. Therefore, impugned judgment and order of

conviction and sentence of the appellant suffers from serious error

of law and liable to be set aside by allowing this appeal.

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

opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the

appellant and submitted that the learned trial court has very wisely

and aptly appraised all the materials available on record and

properly appreciated the evidence of the witnesses and arrived at

2026:JHHC:5618-DB

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.678 of 2019 P a g e 6 |17

right conclusion about guilt of the appellant. There is no doubt

regarding involvement of the appellant in the alleged offence of

murder of his wife by assaulting her through axe and in the Post-

Mortem Report also, it is opined that the death of the deceased

was due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of injuries caused by

sharp cutting weapon. There is no legal substance in the points of

arguments raised on behalf of the appellant and no merits in this

appeal which is fit to be dismissed.

7. The only point for consideration is that as to whether impugned

judgment of conviction and sentence of appellant suffers from any

error of law or not ?

8. Before imparting our verdict on above point it would be opposite

to appraise with the evidence led during trial.

9. It appears that altogether 16 witnesses were examined by the

prosecution to substantiate the charges levelled against accused

person. Out of them P.W.6 Mahendra Kishore Mehta, P.W.11

Geeta Devi, P.W.12 Naresh Kumar Mehta, P.W.13 Rajo Ram and

P.W.14 Deo Narayan Mehta have been declared hostile by the

prosecution and expressed no personal knowledge about the

occurrence.

P.W.1 Malti Devi is mother of the deceased-cum-informant.

According to her testimony, her daughter Suma Devi was married

2026:JHHC:5618-DB

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.678 of 2019 P a g e 7 |17

with the accused Prem Ram (appellant) and had three children. It

is further stated that Prem Ram frequently use to quarrel with

Suma Devi, suspecting her indulgence in illicit relationship with

another man. It is further stated that village meetings (panchayats)

were held earlier to resolve above disputes between the appellant

and his wife (deceased). It is further stated that on the date of

occurrence, this witness was informed by her grand-daughter

Shital Kumari (P.W.15) that her father Prem Ram had murdered

Suma Devi with an axe with assistance of Sarita Devi and Bhola

Ram. Thereafter, on reaching the spot, this witness found her

daughter dead under pool of blood due to head injury.

In her cross-examination, she admits that she is not an eye

witness but came to know from her grand-daughter.

P.W.2 Madan Kumar Sharma is the Investigating Officer of

the case. According to his evidence, on 04.07.2013, he was posted

as Officer-in-Charge of Katkamsandi Police Station. On that day,

he recorded the fardbeyan of the informant Malti Devi (P.W.1) at

village Lupung, on the basis of which, the formal F.I.R. was

registered. He inspected the place of occurrence where the dead

body was found lying near the door of the house with blood on the

floor. He sent the body for post-mortem, recorded the statements

of the informant and several witnesses who supported the

2026:JHHC:5618-DB

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.678 of 2019 P a g e 8 |17

prosecution case. He has collected blood-stained soil from the

spot and after completing the investigation and finding the

allegations to be true, submitted charge-sheet against the accused.

In his cross-examination, he admits that no weapon was

seized, the FSL report of the seized soil was not obtained and

blood-stained clothes were not produced before the court. He has

denied suggestion of defence that his investigation is defective

and he has submitted the charge-sheet against an innocent person.

P.W.3 Vijay Kumar Das is cousin brother of deceased. He

has further stated that the accused was suspecting

fidelity/character of his wife and subjecting her to cruelty. Several

panchayats were held in her parental village, but the accused did

not change his conduct. On 04.07.2013, he received a phone call

from Shital, the elder daughter of the deceased, informing him

that Prem Ram (appellant) had killed her mother by an axe. He

went to the place of occurrence and found Suma Devi dead

sustaining severe cut injury on her head and neck. He has proved

his signature on fardbeyan of informant recorded by police in his

presence.

P.W.4 Chetan Ram has deposed that on the night of

03/04.07.2013, he received a phone call from his grand-daughter

Shital, who informed him that her father Prem Ram has killed her

2026:JHHC:5618-DB

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.678 of 2019 P a g e 9 |17

mother Suma Devi with an axe. On receiving this information, he

along with other family members went to matrimonial home of

deceased and found Suma Devi lying dead under pool of blood

near the door with severe axe injuries on her head and neck and

blood present at the spot. He has further stated that the husband

and his family members were absconding, while the children of

the deceased were present and stated that they had witnessed their

father committing murder. He has signed over the fardbeyan of

informant. Inquest report was prepared by police and body was

sent for post-mortem. He has also proved earlier panchayat

proceedings held due to frequent quarrels between the deceased

and the accused.

P.W.5 Dr. Kapil Deo Prasad Singh is the Medical Officer

who had conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased

Suma Devi on 04.07.2013 at about 10:15 a.m. and found the

following :

(i) Rigor mortis present

(ii) Eyes semi opened

(iii) Mouth semi opened showing upper front teeth

On inspection :

Incised wound 3 ½" x 2" brain deep on left parietal region of

head (ante mortem).

2026:JHHC:5618-DB

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.678 of 2019 P a g e 10 |17

On Dissection :-

(i) Injury of muscles, blood vessels fractured of left

parietal bone, laceration of meanings, brain matter,

collection of blood and blood clot in cranial fossae.

(ii) Heart all chambers empty, lungs pale, kidney pale, live

pale, stomach pale, contained 100 ml of mucoid fluid.

(iii) Small intestine pale contained digested food, fluid and

gas.

(iv) Large intestine pale contained fecal matter and gas.

(v) Urinary bladder empty

(vi) External genital – NAD

(vii) Uterus normal (non gravid)

The cause of death was hemorrhage and shock due to

above injuries by sharp cutting weapons. Time elapsed since

death was within 24 hours.

In his cross-examination, he has stated that the injuries found

on the person of the deceased may be caused by fall on sharp

object. No other injury was found on the body of the

deceased and that there was no specific time of injury noted

in the post-mortem report and denied the suggestion of

defence that his injury report was not scientific.

2026:JHHC:5618-DB

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.678 of 2019 P a g e 11 |17

P.W.7 Madhav Ram has stated that Suma Devi was his

daughter-in-law. On hearing hulla, he went to the place of

occurrence but did not initially see the dead body. Later, he

noticed axe injuries and blood and stated that Prem Ram had

killed Suma Devi. He identified the accused in court.

In his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not witness

the occurrence and the police did not interrogate him during

investigation and that he did not see who committed the murder

inside the room. He denied the defence suggestion that he had

given false evidence.

P.W.8 Dilip Kumar Paswan stated that in the night of the

occurrence in the year 2013, he was informed by nearby residents

that Prem Ram had killed his wife Suma Devi with an axe. On

reaching the spot, he found Suma Devi dead and her children

crying, who told him that their father had assaulted their mother

with a tangi (axe). He further stated that Prem Ram was found

lying on the road in an intoxicated condition, attempting to flee,

and was apprehended by villagers and later handed over to the

police.

In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he did not

personally witness the assault and that his knowledge was based

on information from villagers and the children. He stated that he

2026:JHHC:5618-DB

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.678 of 2019 P a g e 12 |17

was not called by the police during investigation and had no

knowledge of seized articles and denied the defence suggestion

that his testimony was false.

P.W.9 Sikandar Ram stated that Prem Ram, his co-villager,

was in jail for allegedly committing the murder of his wife.

In his cross-examination, he admitted that he had no personal

knowledge of the occurrence and identified the accused only

because he was from the same village.

P.W.10 Sarju Ram stated that Suma Devi was married to the

accused Prem Ram and they had three children. He has further

stated that for the last 5–6 years, the accused suspected his wife's

character and used to assault her. On 04.07.2013, he was informed

by villagers from Prem Ram’s locality that Suma Devi had been

murdered. On reaching the house at village Lupung, he found

Suma Devi dead with a tangi (axe) injury on the back of her head

and blood at the spot. The villagers had apprehended Prem Ram

and confined him in a room. The police was informed and the

dead body was sent for post-mortem. He proved his signature on

the inquest report marked as Ext.3/1.

In his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not witness

the occurrence and that many persons had gathered at the place of

2026:JHHC:5618-DB

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.678 of 2019 P a g e 13 |17

occurrence. He denied the defence suggestion that his testimony

was false or given at the instance of the parents of the deceased.

P.W.15 Shital Kumari is the minor daughter of the deceased

and sole eye-witness to the occurrence. She has stated that on

04.07.2013, while she, her siblings and her parents were inside the

house, her father Prem Ram assaulted her mother Suma Devi with

an axe on the head. When the children attempted to intervene, the

accused threatened them with a knife and forced them to retreat.

The room was locked from inside during the incident and after

killing her mother, the accused opened the door and fled away.

Thereafter, villagers and relatives arrived and she informed them

and her grandmother about the incident.

In her cross-examination, she has remained intact. She has

denied the suggestion of defence that she was tutored and her

father did not commit murder and death of deceased was

accidental.

P.W.16 Ashok Ram has stated that the deceased Suma Devi

was his cousin sister and was married to the accused Prem Ram.

He deposed that about 5–6 years ago. He received a phone call

from his niece Shital Kumari informing him that her father had

murdered her mother. Thereafter, he along with several villagers

went to the house of the accused and found Suma Devi lying dead

2026:JHHC:5618-DB

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.678 of 2019 P a g e 14 |17

with head injury and bleeding. He has further stated that Prem

Ram was confined in a room and Shital (P.W.15) told him that her

father had killed her mother with an axe during the night.

10. On behalf of defence, the accused Prem Ram @ Prem Ravidas

himself was examined as D.W.1. He has denied the charge of

murdering his wife Suma Devi and claimed that he had been

falsely implicated by villagers and his in-laws. He has further

stated that on 04.07.2013, there was a dispute between him and

his wife due to her illicit relationship with one Luxman and that in

a fit of anger she died. He has further stated that his daughter

Shital Kumari has given false evidence at the instance of her

maternal relatives. He claimed that he was not present at his home

at the time of occurrence. F.I.R. was lodged on mere suspicion.

In his cross-examination, he admits that he was present at

home at the time of occurrence and his wife was not suffering

from any illness and that he did not get her treated despite being

obliged to do so. He failed to explain the head injury on his wife

and admitted that he had no independent witness to support his

defence. He denied the prosecution allegation that he had

murdered his wife with an axe.

Therefore, the case of defence is denial from occurrence and

false implication due to altercation between husband and wife

2026:JHHC:5618-DB

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.678 of 2019 P a g e 15 |17

regarding her chastity. However, except examination of accused

himself, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by

defence.

11. We have given anxious consideration to the overall aspects of the

case and the evidence available on record. It is crystal clear that

P.W.15 Shital Kumari is none else but daughter of the appellant

and star witness of this case. She is eye witness of the occurrence

and categorically stated that in the night of the occurrence, her

father has assaulted by axe quarreling with her mother and while

she along with other siblings attempted to rescue her mother, she

was also threatened to be killed. Thereafter, she informed the

villagers as well as her maternal grandmother about the

occurrence and her father fled away from the house. The receipt

of information about occurrence from this witness has also been

corroborated by other witnesses of fact like P.W.1 (Malti Devi),

P.W.3 (Vijay Kumar Das), P.W.4 (Chetan Ram), P.W.8 (Dilip

Kumar Paswan) and P.W.16 (Ashok Ram). The testimony of

P.W.15 also finds corroboration from Post-Mortem Report of

deceased proved by P.W.5 Dr. Kapil Deo Prasad Singh, wherein it

is opined that the deceased has sustained sharp cutting injuries on

left parietal region of head which was fatal. It is also admitted fact

that present appellant was suspecting against the character of his

2026:JHHC:5618-DB

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.678 of 2019 P a g e 16 |17

wife and her indulgence with another villager in illicit relationship

but no substantial evidence has been brought on record to believe

the above story rather it is proved that several times Panchayati

were held wherein the accused was warned against suspecting the

character of his wife and ill-treatment with her. There is no reason

to disbelieve the testimony of P.W.15 as a tutored witness against

her own father. There is also nothing on record to arrive at

conclusion that death of the deceased was caused in any other

manner than alleged by P.W.15 or it was accidental one. The plea

raised on behalf of the appellant that he was under intoxication

and was unable to know the nature of his act as to either it was

wrong or contrary to law, is also fit to be discarded. Voluntary

intoxication cannot be an excuse for commission of such a ghastly

crime and do not give a licence to the accused to commit offence

of murder. The attending circumstances subsequent to commission

of murder are also not supportive of the facts that the appellant

was under heavy intoxication due to consumption of liquor. The

prosecution has been able to prove the genesis, manner and place

of the occurrence along with the motive of the appellant to

commit murder of his own wife. The sole eye witness P.W.15 has

remained intact in her cross-examination also. Therefore, having

regard to the evidence of sole eye witness and other attending

2026:JHHC:5618-DB

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.678 of 2019 P a g e 17 |17

circumstances proved by the prosecution as discussed by learned

trial court does not appear to be erroneous. Therefore, we do not

find any error of law in conviction and sentence of the appellant

recorded by the learned trial court.

In view of above, we do not find any merits in this appeal

which stands dismissed.

12. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

13. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to concerned trial court for

information and needful.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi

Dated: 25/02/2026

Sachin /

NAFR

Uploaded on: 26/02/2026