SARITA BHUIYAN vs STATE OF JHARKHAND

Court
Jharkhand High Court

2026:JHHC:26271
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 847 of 2006
--------
Sarifa Bhuiyan, Son of Late Dhanu Bhuiyan, R/o-Vill.-Garbadih, P.S.
Nagar Untari, Dist.-Garhwa ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand …… Respondent
--------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
--------
For the Appellant :Mr. Shubham Mishra, Amicus Curiae
For the State :Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P.
--------
J UDGMENT

st
Dated: 01 September, 2026

By Court:- Heard learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of
th th
conviction dated 07 April, 2006 and order of sentence dated 12
nd
April, 2006 passed in S.T. No. 108 of 2004 by the learned 2 Addl.
Sessions Judge, Garhwa, whereby and whereunder, the appellant
has been convicted for the offence under Section 304-II of the IPC
and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years for the offence
punishable under Section 304-II of the IPC.
Factual Matrix
3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 14.02.2004,
a village chowkidar-(informant) received information that accused
Sarifa Bhuiyan has killed his wife by a Lathi and fled away. Upon
this, informant and Sundar Bhuiyan went to the house of the
accused and found dead body lying in a room. On enquiry by the
informant from the villagers, he came to know that accused had
hidden himself in the house of Bigan Bhuiyan. Thereafter, the

2026:JHHC:26271


informant and other villagers went and caught the accused from the
house of Bigan Bhuiyan who has confessed his guilt before the
informant and other villagers and also stated before them that the
accused was pressing his wife to compromise the case lodged
against the brother of the accused and due to non-withdrawal of the
said case, the accused assaulted his wife with Lathi.
4. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, Nagar Untari P.S. Case
No. 12 of 2004 was registered for the offence under Section 302 of
the IPC. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was
submitted against the accused and after taking cognizance, the case
was committed to the court of Sessions, where S.T. No.108 of 2004
was registered. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.
5. In course of trial, altogether 9 (nine) witnesses were examined by
the prosecution apart from documentary evidence.
6. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been
adduced by the defence. The case of the defence is the total
denial of the occurrence and false implication
Submissions on behalf of the appellant:-
7. Learned amicus curiae for the appellant assailing the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence has argued that the
learned trial Court has failed to take into consideration the fact that
when the occurrence took place, the appellant was not present. It
has also been submitted that there is no eye witness in this case to
support the case of the prosecution that the appellant has killed his
2
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 847 of 2006


2026:JHHC:26271


wife. It has also been submitted that all the prosecution witnesses
have also failed to reproduce the extra judicial confession made
before them by the accused in exact words or even in the words as
possible and the learned trial Court has committed serious error of
law in placing reliance upon the extra judicial confession of the
appellant. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of the appellant
is bad in law which is fit to be set aside.
Lastly, learned amicus curiae for the appellant has submitted
that the appellant has already served his sentence as awarded by
the learned trial Court.
Submissions on behalf of the State:-
8. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the aforesaid contention raised on
behalf of the appellant defending the impugned judgment on merits
and has submitted that all the prosecution witnesses have supported
the case of the prosecution and the defence taken by the appellant
that the appellant was not present on the date of the occurrence, the
same is itself falsified from the evidence of the informant that the
appellant was caught hiding himself in the house of Began
Bhuiyan on the same date of occurrence. Therefore, there is no
merit in this appeal which is fit to be dismissed.
Analysis, reasons and decision
9. I have gone through the record of the case along with the
impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence in the
light of the contentions raised on behalf of parties.
3
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 847 of 2006


2026:JHHC:26271


10. The sole point for determination in this appeal is “as to whether the
impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant
suffers from any error of law, which requires any interference in
this appeal?”
11. I have meticulously examined the ocular evidence of the witnesses
as available on record.
12. From perusal of record, it appears that the evidence of P.W.-1
Jagarnath Bhuiyan, P.W.-2 Ram Kesh Bhuiyan, P.W.-4 Ram Sagar
Uraon and P.W.-6 Ram Sundar Bhuiyan had proved the chain of
circumstances. Evidence of P.W.-8 Dr. Jwala Prasad Singh has
corroborated the injury sustained by deceased and opined that
death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage caused by hard and
blunt substance such as Lathi. Thus, it appears that there is
sufficient evidence against the appellant which has rightly been
dealt with by the learned trial Court. Therefore, there is no reason
to interfere with the impugned judgment on merits, rather, since the
appellant has already undergone the imprisonment awarded to him,
this appeal stands dismissed.
13. Pending I.A.(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly.
14. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record be sent
back to the court concerned immediately for information and
needful.
15. I take this opportunity to appreciate the assistance rendered by
Mr. Shubham Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae and direct the
Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee to
4
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 847 of 2006


2026:JHHC:26271


extend the stipulated fee as per notification of High Court Legal
Services Committee to learned Amicus Curiae, within a period of
four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this
order.
16. Office is directed to ensure that a copy of this order is served
upon Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee.

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
01.09.2026
Basant/
Uploaded on 01/09/2026
5
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 847 of 2006