2026:JHHC:32626-DB

Page 1 of 21

Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.686 & 1161 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 686 of 2018

[Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated

23.05.2018 passed in S.T. No.60 of 2017 arising out of Bano P.S. Case

No.68 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No.547 of 2016 by learned

Additional Sessions Judge-I, Simdega]

---------

Vijay Singh, aged about 36 years, son of Pusha Singh, Resident of Village-

Tembro, Ganjhutoli, Post Office-Girda, Police Station-Bano (Girda O.P.),

District-Simdega … … Appellant

Versus

The State of Jharkhand …. Respondent

With

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1161 of 2018

---------

1. Shankar Singh @ Budhu, aged about 32 years, son of Bhim Singh

2. Shankar Singh, aged about 34 years, son of Mangru Singh

Both resident of village-Tembro, Ganjhutoli, Post Office-Girda,

Police Station-Bano (Girda O.P.), District-Simdega

… … Appellants

Versus

The State of Jharkhand …. Respondent

----------

For the Appellants : Mr. Praveen Shankar Dayal, Advocate

Mr. Shailesh Poddar, Advocate

Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate

For the Resp.-State : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, A.P.P.

: Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P.

---------

PRESENT

CORAM: SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

SRI PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

JUDGMENT

-----------

CAV On 07/10/2026 Pronounced On 06/11/2026

Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. We have already heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned

A.P.P. for the State.

2026:JHHC:32626-DB

Page 2 of 21

Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.686 & 1161 of 2018

2. Both the above appeals are arising out of common judgment, hence are

heard together and are being disposed of by common judgment.

3. Instant appeals are preferred by the above named appellants for setting

aside their conviction and sentence dated 23.05.2018 passed in S.T.

No.60 of 2017 arising out of Bano P.S. Case No.68 of 2016

corresponding to G.R. No.547 of 2016 by learned Additional Sessions

Judge-I, Simdega whereby and whereunder the appellants have been

held guilty and sentenced for the offence under section 452/34, 302/34,

201/34, 436/34 and 506/34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of

Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999 and have been sentenced to undergo

R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs.20,000/- each for the offence under

section 452/34 of IPC, life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.25,000/-

for the offence under section 302/34 of IPC, R.I. for 5 years along with

fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence under section 201/34 of IPC, R.I.

for 10 years along with fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence under

section 436/34 of IPC, R.I. for 5 years along with fine of Rs.5,000/-

each for the offence under section 506/34 of IPC with default stipulation

and R.I. for 3 months and 6 months for the offence under sections 3 and

4 of Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999 each. Each

convict is also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (victim) as compensation.

All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Factual Matrix:-

4. Factual matrix giving rise to these appeals is that on 13.12.2016 at about

17:00 hours, the informant Bhola Singh along with his parents, younger

2026:JHHC:32626-DB

Page 3 of 21

Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.686 & 1161 of 2018

brother, wife and son were working at the courtyard of this house, in the

meantime, all the accused persons came there and started talking that

they would kill Butru Singh and his wife Bimla Devi and he tried to ask

for the reason but they went away. It is further alleged that after

sometime at about 19:00 hours, all the accused persons again came near

the house of the informant and at that time, the accused, Shankar Singh

was armed with Tangi. Upon seeing the accused persons, his younger

brother Butru Singh and his wife Bimla Devi along with their children

fled away from back door of the house due to fear but all the three

accused persons entered in his house and at that time the informant

along with his parents and wife and son were present in the house. It is

further alleged that all the accused persons threatened the informant to

hand over his younger brother and his wife, otherwise, they will set fire

the entire house to liquidate the entire family. It is further alleged that

the accused persons told that due to daain practice by Butru Singh and

his wife, Bimla Devi, their entire family had become seek and ill. It is

further alleged that the accused persons locked the informant and his

wife and son in a room and took his father Lohra Singh and mother

Chorathi Devi out from the house and set fire in the house with

intention to kill all the family members. Thereafter, the accused persons

brutally assaulted his father and mother and set fire in the house in

which his parents were burnt to death. It is further alleged that the

accused persons threatened all the villagers, who tried to save his family

members. It is further alleged that the accused persons have also set fire

2026:JHHC:32626-DB

Page 4 of 21

Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.686 & 1161 of 2018

of khalian of the informant causing damage to harvested crops and fled

away.

5. On the basis of fardbayan of the informant, Bano P.S. Case No.68 of

2016 was registered for the offence under sections 452, 302, 201, 436,

506/34 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Witch (Daain)

Practices Act against three accused persons.

6. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under

sections 452/34, 302/34, 201/34, 436/34, 506/34 of IPC and sections 3

and 4 of Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act. After taking

cognizance, the case was committed to the court of sessions, where S.T.

No.60 of 2017 was registered.

7. The accused persons have denied the charges leveled against them and

claimed to be tried.

8. After conclusion of trial, the impugned judgment and order was passed,

which has been assailed in these appeal.

9. In the course of trial, altogether 14 witnesses were examined by the

prosecution, namely:-

P.W.1-Birsa Singh

P.W.2-Ramnath Singh

P.W.3-Butru Singh

P.W.4-Dr. Prabhu Sahay Linda

P.W.5-Dr. Amit Kumar

P.W.6-Dr. Manoj Pratap Dungdung

P.W.7-Powal Samad

2026:JHHC:32626-DB

Page 5 of 21

Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.686 & 1161 of 2018

P.W.8-Duryodhan Singh

P.W.9-Bhola Singh

P.W.10-Basudeo Singh

P.W.11-Sudey Narayan Majhi

P.W.12-Hira Singh

P.W.13-Shera Samson Tirkey

P.W.14-Ravindra Kumar (I.O.)

10. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, following documentary

evidences have been adduced by the prosecution.

Ext.1 and 1/1-Post-mortem reports

Ext.2-Signature of Pawal Samad on seizure list.

Ext.3 & 3/1-Signature of Duryodhan Singh on seizure lists

Ext.4-Signature of Bhola Singh on fardebeyan

Ext.5 & 6-Signature of Bhola Singh on both inquest reports

Ext.7 & 8-Signature of Basudeo Singh on both seizure lists

Ext.9 & 9/1-Forwarding letter & Challan relating to material

exhibit

Ext.10-FSL report

Ext.11-Statement under section 164 Cr.P.C.

Ext.12-Fardbeyan & its registration

Ext.13-Formal FIR

Ext.14 to 14/2-Three seizure lists

Ext.15 & 15/1-Inquest reports

2026:JHHC:32626-DB

Page 6 of 21

Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.686 & 1161 of 2018

Ext.16 to 16/2-Three confessional statements of accused,

Shankar Singh, Vijay Singh & Shankar Singh

Ext.17 to 17/2-All three memo of arrest

Ext.18-Letter related to conducting statement under section

164 Cr.P.C. of Pawal Samad

11. Prosecution has also adduced following material exhibits:-

Material Ext.I-Remains of burnt of deceased Lohra Singh

Material Ext.II-Remains of burnt of deceased Chorthi Devi

Material Ext.III-Burnt remains ash of house

Material Ext.IV-Tangi

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

false implication. However, no oral or documentary evidence has been

adduced by the defence.

13. Learned trial court after evaluating the evidence available on record

held the appellants guilty for the aforesaid offences and sentenced them

as stated above.

Submission on behalf of appellants:-

14. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that learned trial court

has examined 14 witnesses in this case and out of them, P.W.1 Birsa

Singh and P.W.2-Ramnath Singh, P.W.7 Powal Samad, P.W.8

Duryodhan Singh and P.W.10 Basudeo Singh have been declared

hostile by the prosecution. P.W.3-Butru Singh is the son of the deceased

and not an eye-witness to the occurrence rather he fled away from the

house and not seen the occurrence. It is further submitted that P.W.4 Dr.

2026:JHHC:32626-DB

Page 7 of 21

Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.686 & 1161 of 2018

Prabhu Sahay Linda, P.W.5-Dr. Amit Kumar and P.W.6-Dr. Manoj

Pratap Dungdung, who have conducted the autopsy on the dead body of

the deceased. It is further submitted that P.W.13 Shera Samson Tirkey,

who is the Judicial Magistrate has recorded the statement of the witness

Pawal Samad under section 164 of Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that

the prosecution case rests on the testimony of P.W.9 Bhola Singh

(informant) and P.W.12 Hira Singh (son of the informant), who are

interested witness and they have been locked in a room and have not

seen the occurrence. It is further submitted that the appellants have

falsely been implicated in this case only on account of previous enmity

between the parties. The evidence of the main witnesses of the facts,

namely, P.W.9 and P.W.12 suffers from the material contradictions and

infirmities as regards actual occurrence. P.W.12 has also admitted that

his statement was not recorded by the police during investigation.

Therefore, the conviction of the appellants only on the basis of evidence

of P.W.9 and P.W.12 is absolutely illegal and erroneous. The specific

case of the prosecution is that only Shankar Singh, S/o-Mangru Singh

was armed with a tangi and the injuries sustained on the body of the

deceased persons have showed to be laceration caused by sharp-cutting

injuries and both the deceased persons might have sustained injury by

one heavy weapon as per opinion of the doctors. No burn injuries were

found on the dead body of the deceased persons and the prosecution has

failed to prove very motive behind the occurrence regarding witch craft

played by Butru Singh and his wife. It is further submitted that even if

2026:JHHC:32626-DB

Page 8 of 21

Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.686 & 1161 of 2018

the testimony of the informant may be taken to be true, it is specifically

alleged that all the accused persons were intended to cause death of

Batru Singh and his wife Bimla Devi and not his parents, who have

been killed in this case. Therefore, all the accused persons cannot be

convicted with the aid of section 34 of IPC for causing death of

different persons by the sole accused, Shankar Singh S/o-Mangru Singh.

It is further submitted that the FSL report was not proved by any

competent witness and no incriminating articles were recovered from

the conscious possession of the appellants showing their involvement in

the alleged offence. Therefore, learned trial court has miserably failed to

consider the overall aspects of the case proved by the prosecution in

right perspective and arrived at wrong conclusion about the guilt of the

appellants, which suffers from serious error of law and liable to be set

aside and these appeals may be allowed.

Submission on behalf of State:-

15. On the other hand, learned A.P.Ps. controverting the aforesaid points of

argument raised on behalf of the appellants has submitted that the

witnesses father and son are very natural witnesses of the occurrence

and their testimony has not been rebutted in their cross-examination and

there is no reason to cast any doubt on the testimony of these witnesses

merely, on the ground of interested or related witnesses. Learned trial

court has very cautiously scrutinized their evidence. The cause of death

of deceased persons has also been proved by the medical board

consisting of P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6. Since, the prosecution has been

2026:JHHC:32626-DB

Page 9 of 21

Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.686 & 1161 of 2018

able to prove the charges leveled against the accused persons through

direct evidence showing their involvement and participation in

commission of the offence charged. Therefore, the proofs or absence of

motive becomes immaterial. Learned trial court has committed no error

of law in recording the findings about the guilt of the appellants. All the

appellants have acted in consorted manner as is proved by the ocular

testimony of witnesses. Therefore, there is no merits in these appeals

and liable to be set aside.

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

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

both side.

17. The only point for determination in these appeals is that “as to whether

the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the

appellants passed by learned trial court suffers from any error of

law calling for any interference in these appeals?”

Analysis, Reasons and Decision:-

18. Before imparting over verdict of the above points, we have to apprise

from oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution.

19. It appears that altogether 14 witnesses were examined by the

prosecution and out of them, P.W.1 Birsa SIngh and P.W.2 Ramnath

Singh are villagers and they were declared hostile.

The most important witness of this case is the informant,

Bhola Singh, who has been examined as P.W.9. He has consistently

corroborated the contents of fardbeyan and testified that the deceased

2026:JHHC:32626-DB

Page 10 of 21

Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.686 & 1161 of 2018

Lohra Singh and Chorthi Devi were his parents. He has further deposed

that on 13.12.2016 at about 5:00 pm, while he was working in the angan

of his house along with his mother, father, younger brother and his wife.

In the meantime, his co-villagers Shankar Singh @ Bhudu, Shankar

Singh and Vijay Singh armed with tangi came and killed his father

Lohra Singh and mother Chorthi Devi and set fire in the house

threatening to kill entire family members. They were also saying to

hand over Butru Singh and his wife, who were indulged in practicing of

witchcraft due to which, the family members of the accused persons

were ill. He further stated that this witness along with his wife and son,

Hira Singh were locked in a room, while his house was set on fire and

the accused persons were threatening the villagers not to interfere with

the matter, otherwise, they would face dire consequences. The accused

persons also set fire his Khalian causing damage of paddy crops. He has

further stated that about six months prior to the occurrence, the accused

persons were labeling motive of daain practice on his younger brother

and his wife. He has proved his signature on Fardbeyan and the same

was marked as Ext.4 and he has also proved inquest report of both

deceased persons prepared by the police, which is marked as Ext.5 and

6 respectively.

In his cross-examination, this witness admits that just

arriving towards the house, the accused persons closed him in a room

along with his wife and son. His younger brother, Butru Singh and his

wife Bimla Devi were not present. He came out of the room by breaking

2026:JHHC:32626-DB

Page 11 of 21

Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.686 & 1161 of 2018

the window in the next day morning at about 9:00 am, and then saw the

dead body of his mother and father and khalian was burnt into ashes. No

material has been elicited in his cross-examination, this witness has

been simply suggested by the defence that since the accused persons or

his neighbour are jealous of him and his family members. Therefore, he

has implicated the accused persons in the false case and they have not

killed his parents.

The next most-important witness is Hira Singh (P.W.12),

who is the son of the informant. This witness has also consistently

proved the prosecution story unlike his father (P.W.9) and testified that

on 13.12.2016 at about 5:00 pm in the evening, he along with his

parents were working in the courtyard of his house. In the meantime,

Shankar Singh @ Budhu, Shankar Singh and Vijay Singh armed with

tangi came there and assaulted his grandmother and grandfather and set

fire in the house. They were threatening to kill all the family members

and were asking for to produce his uncle Butru Singh and his aunty,

Bimla Devi. They were also saying that Butru Singh and Bimla Devi

were daain because due to their daain practicing, saas Firni Devi and

one Bhatiza (niece) of the accused persons had died. Shankar Singh also

stated that due to witch craft, his entire family is unwell. He further

states that the accused persons were threatening the villagers to put

them on fire, if they come ahead to save his family members. The

accused persons also put fire in the khalihan and caused damage to the

2026:JHHC:32626-DB

Page 12 of 21

Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.686 & 1161 of 2018

paddy crops. He further states that the accused persons have been

brandishing his family members as daain for last six months.

In his cross-examination, he admits that they had not made

any complaint anywhere about the threatening given six months ago. He

was locked inside the house by the accused and witnessing all the

incidents putting his house in fire by the accused. He further admits that

the dead body of his grandmother and grandfather were found west of

his house, where the khalihan was situated. He further admits that the

house of deceased and his uncle were situated in west of his house.

P.W.3-Butru Singh is the son of the deceased Lohra Singh

and Chorthi Devi. According to his evidence, on 13.12.2016 at about

5:00 pm, while he was inside the house and working with his father,

mother, brother and bhabhi. All of sudden, the accused Shankar Singh

@ Budhu, Shankar Singh and Vijay Singh armed with lathi and tangi

came there and apprehending the threats, he fled away from the back

door of the house to save his life and stayed overnight in Hurda Bazar.

In the next day morning, he found his father Lohra Singh and mother

Chorthi Devi were burnt to death and he also came to know from his

brother that all the three accused persons have killed his father and

mother with danda and tangi. He further stated that all the three accused

used to call me and my wife “diaan” and used to say that it was because

of me, my wife and my parents, the people in their house were dying

and falling ill.

2026:JHHC:32626-DB

Page 13 of 21

Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.686 & 1161 of 2018

In his cross-examination, he admits that he has not seen the

incident and came to know from his brother about the occurrence. He

further admits that there was no previous enmity between the parties.

P.W.4-Dr. Prabhu Sahay Lind a has conducted post-

mortem on the dead body of the Lohra Singh and found following ante-

mortem injuries:-

General Examination:-

(i) Physique average built,

(ii) Average nutrition,

(iii) Rigor mortis present over all four limbs,

(iv) Body not decomposed,

(v) Whole body burnt and blacken.

External Examination: -

(i) Both eyes are closed,

(ii) Mouth is closed and tongue inside,

(iii) A lacerated wound over left temporal region measuring

2” x 3” x viscera deep,

(iv) A lacerated wound & bruise measuring wound & bruise

measuring 3” x 1 ½” x bone deep over left side of forehead,

(v) A sharp cut injury measuring 1” x 2” x bone deep over

left forehead,

(vi) Bruise over left arm at lower end.

Internal Examination :-

(i) No carbon particles in trachea & lung parenchyma,

(ii) Fracture of left temporal bone measuring 2" x 3",

(iii) Lower end of left humerus fractured,

(iv) Distal end of left radius ulna bones are fractured.

Time since death :- within 36 hours of duration.

2026:JHHC:32626-DB

Page 14 of 21

Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.686 & 1161 of 2018

Weapon used :- Heavy, hard & sharp cutting object- i.e. Axe.

Cause of death :- Cardio respiratory arrest due to severe

external hemorrhage and neurogenic shock. The body was kept in fire a

fiery death.

20. On the same date, he also conducted post-mortem examination on the

dead body of Chorthi Devi aged about 62 years and found the following

ante-mortem injuries:-

General Examination:-

(i) Physique average built.

(ii) Average nutrition,

(iii) Rigor mortis present over all four limbs.

(iv) Whole Body burnt & blacken,

(v) Body not decomposed.

External Examination:-

(i) Both eyes are absent (Burnt out),

(ii) Mouth is closed & tongue inside,

(iii) Left partial bone of skull fractured measuring 3" x 3",

(iv) A chopped wound over left side of thorax over mid

axillary line measuring 3" x 1" x viscera deep.

(v) All fingers of both left & right hand burnt out,

(vi) All fingers of both legs burnt out.

Internal Examination:-

(i) Brain matter absent from the skull,

(ii) Blood in left thoracic cavity,

(iii) Lateral surface of left lung lacerated,

(iv) No carbon particles in trachea & lung parenchyma.

Time since death :-within 36 hours of duration.

Weapon used :-Heavy, hard & sharp cutting object.

2026:JHHC:32626-DB

Page 15 of 21

Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.686 & 1161 of 2018

Cause of death :- Cardio respiratory arrest due to severe

external & internal hemorrhage and neurogenic shock.

The postmortem of both the dead bodies was done by a

Medical Board and he proved the post-mortem report as Ext.1 and 1/1

respectively.

P.W.5 Dr. Anil Kumar and P.W.6 Dr. Manoj Pratap

Dungdung were also members of Medical Board and they agree with

the opinion given by the Medical Board and proved the Medical Board

report as Ext.1 and 1/1.

P.W.7-Powal Samad is the seizure list witness and proved

the same as Ext.2. He has deposed that the deceased Lohra Singh and

Chorthi Devi were his villagers but on the point of identification, he has

been declared hostile.

P.W.8-Duryodhan Singh is grandson of the deceased Lohra

Singh and Chorthi Devi and also a seizure list witness. He has proved

his signature on the seizure list as Ext.3 and 3/1 but he has been

declared hostile.

P.W.10-Basudeo Singh is also the seizure list witness and

proved his signature on seizure list as Ext.7 and 8. However, he has

been declared hostile and expressed no knowledge about the occurrence.

P.W.11-Sudey Narayan Majhi is a formal witness, who has

produced seized articles in a sealed pack before the court, which

consisted of ashes of deceased Lohra Singh and Chorthi Devi, burnt

2026:JHHC:32626-DB

Page 16 of 21

Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.686 & 1161 of 2018

ashes of the house of Bhola Singh and one Tangi and all were marked as

Material Ext. I, II, III and IV respectively.

P.W.13 Shera Samson Tirkey has recorded the statement of

witness Pawal Samad under section 164 of Cr.P.C., which he identified

and proved the same as Ext.11.

P.W.14-Ravindra Kumar is the Investigating Officer of this

case. According to his evidence, after taking the charge of investigation,

he visited the place of occurrence, recorded the statement of witnesses

and confessional statement of accused, Shankar Singh, Shankar Singh

and Vijay Singh and sent them in custody. He seized the tangi from the

house of Shankar Singh, burnt ashes and sent them to FSL, Ranchi for

chemical examination. He got recorded the statement of witness, Powal

Samad under section 164 of Cr.P.C. and he also made inquest report and

collected post-mortem reports. After finding sufficient evidence against

all three accused persons, he had submitted charge-sheet against them.

He has proved fardbeyan as Ext.12, Formal FIR as Ext.13, three seizure

lists as Ext.14 to 14/2, inquest report of the deceased persons as Ext.15

to 15/1, F.S.L. report as Ext.10, confessional statement of all three

accused persons as Ext.16 to 16/2. He has also proved his application

with regard to recording of statement of Powal Samad under section 164

of Cr.P.C as Ext.18.

In his cross-examination, he admits that on 14.12.2016 at

about 1:30 pm, he visited the place of occurrence and found the house

of Butru Singh, which was residing the west of the house of informant,

2026:JHHC:32626-DB

Page 17 of 21

Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.686 & 1161 of 2018

Bhola Singh and the khalihan was situated towards north of their house

and there was one angan in between the house of informant and Butru

Singh. The dead body of both the deceased persons was recovered in the

north of the house of Bhola Singh and Butru Singh but this fact was not

mentioned in the case diary. He found the left over burnt articles in the

varanda of the house of Butru Singh. Earlier, none of the family

members of the informant filed any case against the accused persons

with regard to allegation of daain. All the accused persons were arrested

from their house.

21. From the aforesaid discussion of ocular testimony of witnesses. It

appears that other witnesses of the facts, P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.7, P.W.8

and P.W.10 have been declared hostile and not supported the

prosecution case but so far the informant (P.W.9) and his son Hira

Singh (P.W.12) are concerned, they are consistent on their statement

and are very natural witnesses of the occurrence. However, minor

contradictions and discrepancies are always bound to occur. Hence, the

minor discrepancies or contradictions, if they are not shattering the very

substance of the prosecution case, should be ignored. It is admitted fact

that on the date of occurrence, all the three accused persons came with

tangi with intention to kill his brother Butru Singh and his wife but they

fled away. Thereafter, the accused persons locked the informant and his

wife and son in a room and dragged out his father, Lohra Singh and

mother Chorthi Devi brandishing them as daain and brutally assaulted

them and set the fire in the khalihan with his father and mother as a

2026:JHHC:32626-DB

Page 18 of 21

Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.686 & 1161 of 2018

result of which, they burnt to death and the ante-mortem injuries

sustained on the body of the deceased are corroborated from the post-

mortem report where the cause of death has been opined to be “cardio

respiratory arrest due to severe external & internal hemorrhage and

neurogenic shock and the dead body was kept in a fiery death”. It

further transpires that the investigating Officer (P.W.14) has also

strengthened the evidence of main witnesses, P.W.9 and P.W.12 that the

tangi, which was used in the murder of Lohra Singh and his wife

Chhortahi Devi was seized from the house of Shankar Singh son of

Mangru Singh and was sent to FSL, Ranchi for chemical examination,

was matched with the blood of deceased Lohra Singh. It appears from

the testimony of the witnesses of facts including P.W.9 and P.W.12 that

there was no previous enmity between the parties, hence, there was no

cause for false implication of the accused persons in the heinous offence

of murder of both the deceased persons.

22. So far as the contentions of learned counsel for the appellants on the

point of discarding the evidence of interested witness is concerned, it

appears that the witness P.W.9 and P.W.12 are very natural witness and

their evidence does not suffer from any embellishment and fully reliable

witnesses.

23. On the point of ‘related witness’ and ‘interested witness’, the Hon’ble

Apex Court in the case of Laltu Ghosh v. State of W.B. reported in

(2019) 15 SCC 344, has held at paras 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 as under:-

2026:JHHC:32626-DB

Page 19 of 21

Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.686 & 1161 of 2018

“12. As regards the contention that the eyewitnesses are close relatives

of the deceased, it is by now well-settled that a related witness cannot

be said to be an “interested” witness merely by virtue of being a

relative of the victim. This Court has elucidated the difference between

“interested” and “related” witnesses in a plethora of cases, stating that a

witness may be called interested only when he or she derives some

benefit from the result of a litigation, which in the context of a criminal

case would mean that the witness has a direct or indirect interest in

seeing the accused punished due to prior enmity or other reasons, and

thus has a motive to falsely implicate the accused.

13. Recently, this difference was reiterated in Ganapathi v. State of

T.N. [Ganapathi v. State of T.N., (2018) 5 SCC 549 : (2018) 2 SCC

(Cri) 793].

“14. “Related” is not equivalent to “interested”. A witness may be

called “interested” only when he or she derives some benefit from the

result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused

person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible

eyewitness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be

“interested”.…”

14. In criminal cases, it is often seen that the offence is witnessed by a

close relative of the victim, whose presence on the scene of the offence

would be natural. The evidence of such a witness cannot automatically

be discarded by labelling the witness as interested. Indeed, one of the

earliest statements with respect to interested witnesses in criminal cases

was made by this Court in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab [Dalip Singh

v. State of Punjab, (1953) 2 SCC 36 : 1954 SCR 145 : AIR 1953 SC

364 : 1953 Cri LJ 1465] , wherein this Court observed: (AIR p. 366,

para 26)

“ 26. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless

he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that

usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the

accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily, a close relative

would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an

innocent person.”

15. In case of a related witness, the Court may not treat his or her

testimony as inherently tainted, and needs to ensure only that the

2026:JHHC:32626-DB

Page 20 of 21

Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.686 & 1161 of 2018

evidence is inherently reliable, probable, cogent and consistent. We

may refer to the observations of this Court in Jayabalan v. State (UT of

Pondicherry) [Jayabalan v. State (UT of Pondicherry), (2010) 1 SCC

199 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 966] : (SCC p. 213, para 23)

“23. We are of the considered view that in cases where the court

is called upon to deal with the evidence of the interested witnesses, the

approach of the court while appreciating the evidence of such witnesses

must not be pedantic. The court must be cautious in appreciating and

accepting the evidence given by the interested witnesses but the court

must not be suspicious of such evidence. The primary endeavour of the

court must be to look for consistency. The evidence of a witness cannot

be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from the mouth of a

person who is closely related to the victim.”

16. In the instant matter, as already discussed above, we find the

testimony of the eyewitnesses to be consistent and reliable, and

therefore reject the contention of the appellants that the testimony of

the eyewitnesses must be disbelieved because they are close relatives of

the deceased and hence interested witnesses.”

24. In the case of Ramji Singh v. State of U.P. reported in (2020) 2 SCC

425, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held at para 21 as under:-

“21. We must remember that the prosecution story is that six persons

who were heavily armed, two of them with guns, killed the deceased in

broad daylight. This itself shows that these accused persons were not

scared of the villagers. While leaving the place of occurrence they

threatened all gathered there by saying that anybody who tried to

interfere would meet the same fate. In such a situation no other villager

who may have been present would turn up to give evidence. This Court

cannot lose sight of the harsh reality that witnesses are scared to depose

in court. In this case two of the witnesses have spoken up and their

evidence has been corroborated on all counts. It may be true that their

relations with the accused may not have been cordial but the evidence

does not show that the enmity or dispute between these two witnesses

and the accused was of such a nature that these two witnesses would

make false statements only to settle scores with the appellants thereby

leaving the real culprits to go scot-free. In our opinion merely because

2026:JHHC:32626-DB

Page 21 of 21

Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.686 & 1161 of 2018

these witnesses are interested witnesses their testimony cannot be

discarded.”

25. From the aforesaid discussion and reasons, it appears that learned trial

court has committed no illegality in relying the evidence of related

witnesses including other attending circumstances of the case, which

also reveals the commission of alleged offence committed by the

present appellants. Therefore, we do not find any merits in these

appeals, which stands dismissed.

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

27. The appellants are in custody. Let a copy of this judgment be furnished

forthwith to the appellants through learned counsel for the State.

28. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned for

information and needful.

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

Per Ananda Sen, J. : I agree

(Ananda Sen, J.)

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi

Dated:-06/11/2026

Pappu/-N.A.F.R.

Uploaded on 06/11/2026