VIJAY SINGH vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
2026:JHHC:32626-DB
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.
Page 1 of 21
Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.686 & 1161 of 2018
2026:JHHC:32626-DB
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
Page 2 of 21
Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.686 & 1161 of 2018
2026:JHHC:32626-DB
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
Page 3 of 21
Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.686 & 1161 of 2018
2026:JHHC:32626-DB
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
Page 4 of 21
Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.686 & 1161 of 2018
2026:JHHC:32626-DB
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
Page 5 of 21
Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.686 & 1161 of 2018
2026:JHHC:32626-DB
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.
Page 6 of 21
Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.686 & 1161 of 2018
2026:JHHC:32626-DB
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
Page 7 of 21
Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.686 & 1161 of 2018
2026:JHHC:32626-DB
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
Page 8 of 21
Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.686 & 1161 of 2018
2026:JHHC:32626-DB
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
Page 9 of 21
Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.686 & 1161 of 2018
2026:JHHC:32626-DB
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
Page 10 of 21
Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.686 & 1161 of 2018
2026:JHHC:32626-DB
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
Page 11 of 21
Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.686 & 1161 of 2018
2026:JHHC:32626-DB
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.
Page 12 of 21
Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.686 & 1161 of 2018
2026:JHHC:32626-DB
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.
Page 13 of 21
Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.686 & 1161 of 2018
2026:JHHC:32626-DB
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.
Page 14 of 21
Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.686 & 1161 of 2018
2026:JHHC:32626-DB
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
Page 15 of 21
Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.686 & 1161 of 2018
2026:JHHC:32626-DB
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,
Page 16 of 21
Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.686 & 1161 of 2018
2026:JHHC:32626-DB
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
Page 17 of 21
Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.686 & 1161 of 2018
2026:JHHC:32626-DB
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:-
Page 18 of 21
Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.686 & 1161 of 2018
2026:JHHC:32626-DB
“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
Page 19 of 21
Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.686 & 1161 of 2018
2026:JHHC:32626-DB
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
Page 20 of 21
Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.686 & 1161 of 2018
2026:JHHC:32626-DB
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
Page 21 of 21
Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.686 & 1161 of 2018