2026:JHHC:31852

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1255 of 2008

[Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

27.09.2008 & 30.09.2008 respectively passed by learned 2

nd

Additional

Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in S.T. No. 285 of 1992]

--------

1. Shiv Bachan Pandey, son of Sri Nageshwar Pandey

2. Vidya Pandey, son of Basudeo Pandey

3. Sundar Singh, son of Shatrughan Singh

All residents of Village & P.O.-Chak, P.S.-Chauparan, District-

Hazaribagh

... ... Appellants

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Dhalo Pandey, son of Late Kaleshwar Pandey, R/o Mouza Ghosla,

P.O. & P.S.-Chauparan, District-Hazaribagh, Jharkhand

… … Respondents

-----

P R E S E N T

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

--------

For the Appellants : Mr. A.K. Das, Sr. Advocate

For the State : Mr. V.S. Sahay, A.P.P.

--------

JUDGMENT

C.A.V. on 10.08.2026 Pronounced on 30/10/2026

1. Heard Mr. A.K. Das, learned senior counsel for the appellants

and Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. It is to be mentioned at the very outset that out of five

appellants, appellant No.1, Nageshwar Pandey and appellant No.5,

Basant Pandey have died during pendency of this appeal and appeal

preferred by above named appellants has been abated. This appeal is

heard on behalf of three alive appellants renumbered as above.

3. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and

order of conviction and sentence dated 27.09.2008 & 30.09.2008

respectively passed by learned 2

nd

Additional Sessions Judge,

Hazaribagh in S.T. No. 285 of 1992 whereby and whereunder the

appellants have been held guilty for the offences under Section 304

2026:JHHC:31852

2

part-II/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for five years each for the offence under Section 304

part-II/34 of the I.P.C.

Factual Matrix

4. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a narrow campus is

that marriage ceremony of Kanhai Pandey, son of Bhuneshwar

Pandey, resident of Village Deoria, P.S. Chatra, District Hazaribagh

(now District Chatra), was scheduled to be solemnized on 05.05.1990

with one Sunita Pandey, daughter of Sri Sarju Pandey, resident of

Village Chak. It is alleged that on 06.05.1990, at about 04:00 A.M.

when marriage ceremony was going on in presence of bride and

groom party members respectively, in the meantime one Basudeo

Choubey, member of baraat party, threw a chocolate on aiming the

woman folk belonging to bride party which led an altercation between

both party members, but anyhow the dispute was resolved by

pacifying both the parties. It is further alleged that just after

conclusion of marriage ceremony rituals baraat party members

proceeded to janvasa situated near Kali Manda of Village-Chak then

at about 07:00 A.M. baraat party members, namely Gaya Pandey,

Bhagwan Pandey (died), Vidya Pandey, Bachan Pandey, Nagi Pandey,

Sundar Singh, Raj Karan Singh and Basant Pandey came and

surrounded Bhuneshwar Pandey (father of groom) and started

assaulting him by slaps and fists. In the meantime, his son Raj Kishore

Pandey (since deceased) came to rescue his father but all the accused

persons started assaulting to Raj Kishore Pandey mercilessly when he

2026:JHHC:31852

3

fell down then thrashed over his chest due to which he became

unconscious. It is alleged that several villagers intervened and pacified

the matter. The informant Dhalo Pandey (maternal uncle of groom)

requested the accused persons with folded hands to stop the scuffle

and assault thereafter injured Raj Kishore Pandey under unconscious

state was brought to police station thereafter sent to hospital and

written report was lodged.

On the basis of above written report, F.I.R. was registered for

the offences under Sections 143, 342, 323 & 307 of the I.P.C.

5. In the course of treatment, injured Raj Kishore Pandey

succumbed to his injuries. After conclusion of investigation, charge-

sheet was submitted against all eight named accused persons for the

offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307 & 302 of the I.P.C.

The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where S.T. No. 285

of 1992 was registered. Charges were framed against all the accused

persons under Sections 147, 323, 302/149 of the I.P.C. The accused

persons denied from charges and claimed to be tried.

6. During pendency of the trial, one co-accused Bhagwan Pandey

died and proceeding against him was dropped vide order dated

10.06.2008. The rest seven accused persons faced the trial.

7. In the course of trial altogether nine witnesses were examined

by the prosecution:-

P.W.-1-Bhuneshwar Pandey (father of deceased)

P.W.-2-Sarju Pandey (father of bride)

P.W.-3-Dhalo Pandey (informant of this case)

2026:JHHC:31852

4

P.W.-4-Basudeo Pandey

P.W.-5-Parmeshwar Pandey

P.W.-6-Birju Pandey

P.W.-7-Dr. Shashi Bhushan Singh (Dr. who conducted P.M.

Examination)

P.W.-8-Chandra Shekhar Agrawal

P.W.-9-Kundan Kumar (Advocate Clerk)

8. Apart from oral testimony of witnesses following documentary

evidence has also been adduced:-

(i) Exhibit-1 to 1/1- Signatures of Bhuneshwar Pandey

and Basudeo Pandey on fardbeyan

(ii) Exhibit-1/2-Signature of Dhalo Pandey on fardbeyan

(iii) Exhibit-2 to 2/1-Signatures of Bhuneshwar Pandey

and Basudeo Pandey on inquest report

(iv) Exhibit-3-Post-mortem report

(v) Exhibit-4 to 4/1-Injury reports of Kishor Pandey and

Bhuneshwar Pandey

(vi) Exhibit-5-Formal F.I.R.

(vii) Exhibit-5/1-Endorsement on the F.I.R.

9. On the other hand, defence has also examined four witnesses,

namely D.W.-1, Sakaldeo Singh, D.W.-2, Daya Nand Singh, D.W.-3,

Deoki Ram & D.W.-4, Jeevan Krishna Prasad.

Moreover, the following documentary evidences have also been

adduced by defence.

(i) Exhibit-A-Signature of Sakaldeo Singh on affidavit

2026:JHHC:31852

5

(ii) Exhibit-B-Signature of Dayanand Singh on affidavit

(iii) Exhibit-C-Signature of Deoki Ram on affidavit

(iv) Exhibit-D to D/4-Five affidavits

(v) Exhibit-E-Signature of Arun Kumar Pandey on

affidavit

(vi) Exhibit-F-Certified copy of S.T. 129/98

(vii) Exhibit-G-Certified copy of F.I.R.

(viii) Exhibit-H-Certified copy of S.T. 8/85

10. After conclusion of trial, the appellants were held guilty for the

offences under Section 304 part-II/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced as

stated above which has been assailed in this appeal.

Submissions on behalf of appellants: -

11. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the

impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is

unsustainable in law as well as on facts and is liable to be set aside, as

the learned Court below has failed to appreciate the material

contradictions, omissions and improvements in the statements of the

prosecution witnesses, particularly with regard to the place, time and

manner of occurrence. It has further been submitted that non-

examination of the Investigating Officer has seriously prejudiced the

defence and that the ocular evidence is not consistent with the medical

evidence, as P.W.7 did not find any external injury corresponding to

the alleged assault and the extradural haematoma was found on the

left parietal region, whereas P.W.8 stated about only a small abrasion

on the right side of the head. It has also been submitted that no

2026:JHHC:31852

6

specific overt act has been attributed to any particular appellant, the

allegations are general and omnibus, and no independent witness has

been examined. The prosecution witnesses being closely related and

interested, coupled with the admitted previous enmity between the

parties, their testimony requires cautious scrutiny. Learned counsel

has further submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish any

nexus between the alleged assault and the death of the deceased and

has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the

impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and appellants deserve

acquittal from the charges levelled against them, allowing this appeal.

Submissions on behalf of State: -

12. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the aforesaid

contentions raised on behalf of appellants and submitted that the

learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants on the basis of

materials available on record, therefore, there is no illegality or

infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the

appellants and no merits in this appeal which is fit to be dismissed.

13. I have gone through the record of the case along with the

impugned judgment in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both

side.

14. The only point for determination in this appeal is “as to

whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction and

sentence of the appellants suffers from any serious error of law

calling for any interference in this appeal?”

2026:JHHC:31852

7

Analysis, discussions and reasons:-

15. Before imparting my verdict on above point, it is desirable to

take brief resume of ocular testimony of witnesses examined in this

case.

P.W.-1-Bhuneshwar Pandey is the father of the deceased. He

has stated that the marriage ceremony was going on during the night.

After the marriage, when the members of Barati party went to the

Janwasa at about 7:00 a.m., the accused persons, namely, Nagi

Pandey, Chowa Pandey, Gayaditya Pandey, Raj Karan Singh, Vidya

Pandey, Sundar Singh, Deva Pandey, Bachan Pandey and Basudeo

Pandey came there and started assaulting him, his son Raj Kishore

Pandey (the deceased) and Basudeo Choubey with fists and slaps.

When his son, Raj Kishore Pandey, fell to the ground, Chowa Pandey

climbed upon his chest and smashed him. His son became

unconscious. He was taken to the hospital, where, during the course of

treatment, he died on 07.05.1990 at Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh.

Thereafter, he went to the police station and gave his statement.

P.W.-2-Sarju Pandey, who is the father of bride, has stated that

when the Barati party went to the Janwasa, he heard a commotion.

Thereafter, he went to the Janwasa and saw Vidya Pandey carrying a

lathi, while Basant Pandey was fleeing towards his house. He also saw

Gaya Pandey, Bhagwan Pandey, Chowa Pandey, Daya Pandey, Nagi

Pandey and others coming out of the Janwasa. They were empty-

handed. The accused persons had assaulted Raj Kishore Pandey, as a

result of which he became unconscious. He was taken to the hospital

2026:JHHC:31852

8

and subsequently died at Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh.

P.W.-3-Dhalo Pandey is the informant in this case. He has

stated that an altercation took place during the marriage ceremony

over the throwing of a chocolate towards the Mandap. Although, the

matter was pacified and the marriage was completed, a quarrel again

took place at the Janwasa on 06.05.1990 between Bhuneshwar

Pandey and his son, Kishor Pandey, on one side and Gaya Pandey,

Vidya Pandey, Bhagwan Pandey, Bachan Pandey, Nagi Pandey,

Sundar Singh, and Basudeo Pandey on the other. When Kishor Pandey

intervened to save Bhuneshwar Pandey, Nagi Pandey, Gaya Pandey,

Vidya Pandey and Bhagwan Pandey assaulted him, causing him to fall

to the ground. They then mounted upon his chest, as a result of which

he became unconscious. He was taken to the hospital, where he died

on 07.05.1990.

P.W.-4-Basudeo Pandey has stated that after the marriage

ceremony was over, at about 7:30 a.m., the members of Baraati party

proceeded to Janwasa, where some members of Sarati also arrived.

Gaya Pandey started abusing and saying about the incident of

throwing chocolates towards girls. Upon this Bhuneshwar Pandey and

his son Raj Kishor Pandey were assaulted by Gaya Pandey, Vidya

Pandey, Bhagwan Pandey, Sundar Singh, Nagi Pandey, Bachni Pandey

and others. Thereafter, Kishore was lifted about ten yards from the

Janwasa and Vidya Pandey rushed and thrashed Raj Kishor Pandey on

the ground. The injured was brought by them to Chauparan Police

Station thereafter to Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh.

2026:JHHC:31852

9

P.W.-5, Parmeshwar Pandey has stated that the marriage

ceremony was going on during the night. After the marriage

ceremony, at about 6:00–7:00 a.m., Bhagwan Pandey, Vidya Pandey,

Nageshwar Pandey, Nagi Pandey, Gaya Pandey, Basudeo Pandey and

Basuni Pandey went to the Devisthan situated at the Janwasa. There,

Deva Pandey stated that they were leaving after insulting the honour

of their locality and said, “Beat them.” Sundar Singh also said, “Beat

them.” Thereafter, all the aforesaid seven persons assaulted

Bhuneshwar Pandey and caused injuries to him. When Kishor Pandey

went to rescue his father from the aforesaid persons, all the aforesaid

seven accused persons assaulted Kishor Pandey with lathi, wooden

posts, kicks and fists. They also climbed onto his chest and pressed

and assaulted him. Kishor Pandey became unconscious at the spot.

After the assault, all the accused persons left the place. Kishor Pandey

was taken to the hospital at Chauparan, where he was treated.

Thereafter, the doctor referred him to Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh,

where Kishor Pandey was died during treatment.

P.W.-6, Birju Pandey has stated that the members of the Sarati

party, namely, Nagi Pandey, Gaya Pandey, Chowa Pandey, Vidya

Pandey, Sundar Singh, Rajkaran Singh and Vasni Pandey came there

and taking out sticks from the ghoran, started assaulting Kishor

Pandey and Bhuneshwar Pandey. The members of the Sarati party

struck Kishor Pandey on kanpati, as a result of which he fell down

unconscious. When they reached the spot, they saw the aforesaid

persons assaulting Bhuneshwar Pandey and Kishor Pandey with

2026:JHHC:31852

10

sticks. They intervened and separated the parties and thereafter, he

along with Dhalo and Parmeshwar, took Kishor Pandey to a doctor at

Chauparan. On the advice of the doctor, they took him to Sadar

Hospital at Hazaribagh, where he subsequently died on 07.05.1990.

P.W.-7-Dr. Shashi Bhushan Singh has deposed that on

07.05.1990, he was posted as C.A.S. at Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh.

On that day, at 02:00 P.M., he has conducted autopsy on the dead body

of Raj Kishore Pandey (deceased) and found the following injuries:-

Both eyes opened, mouth partially opened, fist half clinched,

left hand old scar of burn.

On external examination:- There was no external mark of

injury.

On dissection:- extradural haemotoma over left side on the

parietal region. Other visceras (abdominal and others) were intact and

pale.

Time since death-within 12 hours. Cause of death due to shock

and haemorrhage due to above mentioned injures of brain matters due

to extradural haemotoma.

He has proved the post mortem report which is marked as

Exhibit-3.

P.W.-8-Chandra Shekhar Agrawal has examined Raj Kishore

Pandey on 06.05.1990 and found the following injuries:-

(1) Patient was unconscious, restless bleeding from mouth and

nose.

(2) Swelling 2" x 2" on right side of scalp.

2026:JHHC:31852

11

Simple in nature caused by hard and blunt weapons.

He has opined that age of injury was within 12 hours.

On 13.05.1990, he also examined Bhuneshwar Pandey and

found the following injuries:-

(1) An old scratch 1" x 1/2" on the middle of scalp.

(2) Abrasion 1/2" x 1/2" on right iliac crest

(3) Complaint of pain on left thigh.

This witness has opined that the injury was simple in nature,

caused by hard and blunt substance and the age of injury is about one

week.

He has proved both the injury reports in his handwriting and

signature, which is marked as Exhibit-4 and 4/1 respectively.

P.W.-9-Kundan Kumar is an Advocate clerk. He has stated

that the formal F.I.R. is in the handwriting and signature of Shri

Shailendra Singh, the then Station House Officer of Chauparan and

the same has been marked as Exhibit-5. He has further stated that

endorsement on F.I.R. is also in the handwriting of Sri Shailendra

Singh, the then S.H.O., Chauparan.

On the other hand, D.W.-1-Sakaldeo Singh has proved the

affidavit which bears his signature, which is marked as Exhibit- A.

D.W.-2, Daya Nand Singh has stated that this affidavit was

prepared at his instance and bears his signature, which he identifies.

The affidavit is marked as Exhibit-B.

D.W.-3, Deoki Ram has stated that his niece's wedding took

place on 05.05.1990 and Gayaditya Pandey was invited to the

2026:JHHC:31852

12

wedding. He was present at his place on the day of the wedding. This

affidavit was prepared at his instance and bears his signature, which

he identifies. The affidavit is marked as Exhibit-C.

D.W.-4, Jeevan Krishna Prasad has stated that this affidavit

was written by Sachcho Babu Munshi in his presence. It was written

at the instance of the deponent. Thereafter, the deponent signed it.

Advocate Shiv Kumar Prasad identified the deponent. The affidavit

was sworn before T.N. Sahay, Notary. The affidavit is marked as

Exhibits-D, D/1, D/2, D/3 and D/4. This document bears the

signature of Arun Kumar Pandey. The affidavit is marked as

Exhibit-E.

16. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the

parties and carefully scrutinized the evidence available on record, this

Court finds that the incident arose out of an altercation during a

marriage ceremony, wherein the deceased, Raj Kishore Pandey, was

allegedly assaulted while intervening to rescue his father. However,

the allegations against the surviving appellants, Shiv Bachan Pandey,

Vidya Pandey and Sundar Pandey are general and omnibus and their

specific roles have not been established by cogent and reliable

evidence.

17. The medical evidence assumes considerable significance in the

present case. P.W.-7, Dr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, who conducted the

post-mortem examination, found no external mark of injury on the

body of the deceased but detected an extradural haematoma over the

left parietal region of the head, which was opined to be the cause of

2026:JHHC:31852

13

death due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from the said injury.

P.W.-8, Dr. Chandra Shekhar Agrawal, who had examined the

deceased earlier, noted swelling measuring 2" x 2" on the right side of

the scalp. The medical evidence, therefore, establishes that the

deceased sustained a fatal head injury, however, it does not establish

the identity of the person who caused the said injury or connect the

surviving appellants with the same.

18. The prosecution has alleged that eight accused persons

assaulted the deceased and that, after he fell down, they climbed upon

his chest and pressed it. However, the post-mortem report does not

disclose any injury corresponding to the alleged act of pressing the

chest. Further, the medical evidence does not satisfactorily corroborate

the allegation of a concerted assault by all the accused persons in the

manner alleged by the prosecution. None of the prosecution witnesses

has been able to attribute any specific and reliable overt act to the

surviving appellants so as to establish their participation in causing the

fatal injury. The main allegation regarding the infliction of the stick

blow has been attributed to another accused, who died during the

pendency of the appeal. In these circumstances, the general allegations

against the surviving appellants, without reliable evidence establishing

their individual participation are insufficient to sustain their

conviction.

19. The possibility of false implication of the surviving appellants

on account of the earlier altercation between the two groups cannot be

ruled out. Moreover, the non-examination of the Investigating Officer

2026:JHHC:31852

14

assumes significance in view of the defence challenge concerning

material contradictions, omissions and inconsistencies in the

prosecution evidence. Considered cumulatively with the general

nature of the allegations, the absence of reliable evidence attributing

specific acts to the surviving appellants and the lack of satisfactory

corroboration regarding their participation in the alleged assault, these

circumstances give rise to a reasonable doubt about their involvement

in the commission of the offence.

20. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to establish

beyond reasonable doubt that the surviving appellants shared the

common intention to commit the offence resulting in the death of the

deceased or constituted an unlawful assembly having any common

object as contemplated under Section 141 of the I.P.C., in furtherance

of which the alleged offence was committed.

21. The prosecution has also failed to establish a consistent and

reliable account identifying the person responsible for the fatal head

injury or proving the participation of the surviving appellants in the

assault in the manner alleged. The general and omnibus allegations,

the absence of reliable evidence establishing their specific overt acts,

the medical evidence and the other infirmities in the prosecution case,

when considered cumulatively, create a reasonable doubt regarding

their guilt. This Court, therefore, finds that the learned Trial Court

failed to properly appreciate these material aspects while recording

their conviction.

22. In view of the above discussion and reasons recorded

2026:JHHC:31852

15

hereinabove, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove

beyond reasonable doubt the charge under Section 304 Part II read

with Section 34 of the I.P.C. against the appellants, therefore, they are

entitled to the benefit of doubt.

23. Consequently, the impugned judgment of conviction and order

of sentence passed by the learned 2

nd

Additional Sessions Judge,

Hazaribagh, in G.R. Case No. 250 of 2009 is hereby set aside and this

appeal is allowed.

24. Appellants are on bail, as such they are discharged from the

liability of bail bonds and sureties are also discharged.

25. Pending I.A(s), if any, stands disposed of.

26. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record be

sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

Jharkhand High Court

Dated 30/10/2026

Arpit/ N. A. F. R.

Uploaded on 30/10/2026