RAMBRIKSH CHAUDHARY And ORS vs STATE OF JHARKHAND
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
2026:JHHC:26735
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 437 of 2009
[ Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
22.04.2009 and 28.04.2009 respectively, passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, Garhwa in S.T. Case No. 219 of 2004 ]
--------
1. Rambriksh Chaudhary
2. Lakhan Chaudhary
3. Ramesh Chaudhary
4. Ramashish Chaudhary
All sons of Deepan Chaudhary, resident of Village-Shri Nagar,
P.S.-Bhawanathpur, District-Garhwa
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent
-----
P R E S E N T
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
--------
For the Appellants : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
Mrs. Lina Shakti, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, A.P.P.
--------
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on 11.08.2026 Pronounced on 03/09/2026
1. I have already heard the arguments of Mr. A.K. Kashyap , learned
senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. Bishambhar Shastri , learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. Originally, the appeal was filed by five appellants out of them
one appellant, namely Deepan Chaudhary has died during the pendency
of this appeal and his appeal was abated vide order dated 03.07.2026.
The rest of the surviving appellants have been renumbered.
3. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and
order of conviction and sentence dated 22.04.2009 and 28.04.2009
respectively, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I,
Garhwa in S.T. Case No. 219 of 2004, whereby and whereunder the
appellants have been held guilty for the offences under Sections 147,
2026:JHHC:26735
323, 307, 304(1) read with Section 149 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for two years for the offence under Section 147 of the
I.P.C.; R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C.;
R.I. for five years for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C.; R.I.
for seven years along with fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under
Section 304 (part-I) read with Section 149 of the I.P.C. each with
default stipulation. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Factual Matrix
4. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal as per fardbeyan of the
informant, Uday Chaudhary, is that on 17.09.2000 at 04:00 P.M. his
younger brother, Dilip Chaudhary was fastening his boat on the bank of
Sone River near the village. At that time villagers Deepan Chaudhary
and his sons Ramashish, Rambriksh, Lakhan and Ramesh came there
armed with sticks, spears and swords and started assaulting his brother.
It is further stated that the informant’s father, Kailash Chaudhary went
to save his son, whereupon the accused persons also started beating him
with stick, bhala (spear) and sword, causing injuries to his head and
hand. On hearing the cries, the informant and his mother rushed to the
place of occurrence. The accused persons then surrounded the
informant and his mother and assaulted them with stick, spear and
sword. In the course of assault, the informant’s mother sustained
injuries on her head and back, while the informant sustained injuries on
his neck, chest and forehead. It is further alleged that the accused
persons also pressed the informant’s neck. Subsequently, on the arrival
of the villagers, the informant and his family members were saved, but
2
2026:JHHC:26735
father of informant, namely Kailash Chaudhary died.
On the basis of above fardbeyan , Bhawnathpur P.S. Case No. 50
of 2000 dated 20.09.2000 was registered for the offences under
Sections 147/148/149/302/307/324/323 of the I.P.C.
5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet dated 30.12.2000
was submitted against the accused persons, namely Deepan Chaudhary,
Rambriksh Chaudhary and Lakhan Chaudhary for the offences under
Sections 302, 307, 324, 325, 323 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and
another supplementary charge-sheet dated 31.07.2001 was submitted
against the accused Ramashish Chaudhary for the offence under
Sections 302, 307, 323, 324, 325 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.
Accordingly, cognizance was taken and subsequently, the case was
committed to the Court of Sessions, where S.T. Case No. 219 of 2004
was registered. The charges were read over and explained to the
accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.
6. In the course of trial, altogether 15 witnesses were examined by
the prosecution:-
(i) P.W.-1-Shanti Kunwar, (wife of deceased Kailash
Chaudhary)
(ii) P.W.-2-Shukar Ram
(iii) P.W.-3-Dilip Chaudhary
(iv) P.W.-4-Uday Chaudhary
(v) P.W.-5-Birendra Kumar Singh
(vi) P.W.-6-Bigan Chaudhary
3
2026:JHHC:26735
(vii) P.W.-7-Dr. Jwala Prasad Singh
(viii) P.W.-8-Suresh Chaudhary
(ix) P.W.-9-Dr. Ajay Kr. Jha
(x) P.W.-10-Dr. Kishore Chandra Chaudhary
(xi) P.W.-11-Kameshwar Prasad
(xii) P.W.-12-Rajendra Chaudhary
(xiii) P.W.-13-Gauri Shankar Chaudhary
(xiv) P.W.-14-Ashok Chaudhary
(xv) P.W.-15-Mular Devi
7. Apart from oral testimony following documentary evidence have
also been adduced by prosecution.
(i) Exhibit-1-Signature of Birendra Singh on inquest report
(ii) Exhibit-2-Post-moretem report of Kailash Chaudhary
(iii) Exhibit-3-Injury report of Shanti Devi prepared by P.W.-9
(iv) Exhibit-4-Injury report of Uday Chaudhary prepared by
P.W.-9
(v) Exhibit-4/1-Supplementary injury report of Uday
Chaudhary prepared by Dr. A.K. Jha
(vi) Exhibit-4/2-X-ray report of Uday Chaudhary
(vii) Exhibit-5-Injury report of Uday Chaudhary prepared by
P.W.-10
(viii) Exhibit-5/1-Injury report of Shanti Devi prepared by P.W.-
10
(ix) Exhibit-5/2-Injury report of Kailash Chaudhary prepared
by P.W.-10
4
2026:JHHC:26735
(x) Exhibit-6-Fardbeyan
(xi) Exhibit-6/1-Endorsment on fardbeyan
(xii) Exhibit-7-Formal F.I.R.
8. On the other hand, two defence witnesses, namely Ravindra
Singh (D.W.-1) and Bishambhar Chaudhary (D.W.-2) have also been
examined by the defence.
9. The case of defence is denial from occurrence, plea of innocence
and false implication.
10. After conclusion of trial, the appellants were held guilty for the
offences under Sections 147, 323, 307, 304(1) read with Section 149 of
the I.P.C. and sentenced as stated above which has been assailed in this
appeal.
Submissions on behalf of appellants: -
11. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants has submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to
properly consider the defence version, the innocence of the appellants
and false implication in this case. The presence of the appellants at the
place of occurrence is doubtful and no incriminating article or weapon
was recovered from their possession. The Investigating Officer was not
examined, resulting in non-proving of material contradictions and
lapses in investigation. The prosecution witnesses are not reliable
eyewitnesses and have made material improvements with regard to the
manner of assault and weapons allegedly used. The F.I.R. was lodged
after unexplained delay and the medical evidence does not support the
prosecution case regarding the alleged use of sharp-cutting weapons,
5
2026:JHHC:26735
particularly when the injuries were found to be simple in nature. It has
further been submitted that the presence of appellant Nos. 3 and 4 is
specifically disputed by P.W.2, thereby creating serious doubt regarding
their false implication. The prosecution has also failed to establish any
motive or intention to commit murder and as the accused persons
allegedly reached the place of occurrence one by one, there was no
common object, meeting of minds or premeditation to attract Section
149 I.P.C. The conviction under Section 307 I.P.C. is also not
sustainable in view of the medical evidence. It has also been submitted
that the prosecution has failed to establish the place and manner of
occurrence 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
material 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
6
2026:JHHC:26735
appellants suffers from any serious error of law calling for any
interference in this appeal?”
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-Shanti Kunwar is the wife of deceased, Kailash
Chaudhary. She has deposed that the occurrence is about five years ago.
According to her, it was Sunday and the time was about 4:00 P.M. At
that time, she was at her home when she heard shout and went running
towards the bank of river Sone. On reaching there, she found that her
husband and her sons, Dilip and Uday were being assaulted by the
accused persons, namely Deepan Chaudhary, Ramesh, Ashish,
Rambriksh and Lakhan. According to her, the accused persons were
having Barchha, Bhala and lathi . She has further deposed that her
husband sustained injury on his head, from which flesh came out and
bleeding started. She has also stated that there was bleeding from his
mouth. When she objected to the assault, she was also assaulted with
lathi . Her son Uday also sustained injuries. After her husband fell
down, the accused persons fled away. Thereafter, the Gotias took her
husband to the Government Hospital, Kandi and she accompanied him.
From Kandi her husband was referred to Government Hospital,
Garhwa, where he died during treatment. Subsequently, post-mortem
was conducted on his dead body.
In her cross-examination, she has stated that she was examined
7
2026:JHHC:26735
by the police twice, first at Garhwa and thereafter at Bhawnathpur, as
she could not properly give her statement at Garhwa. She has denied
the defence suggestions that she had not disclosed to the police about
the use of Barchha, Bhala and lathi by the accused persons or that flesh
had not come out from the forehead of the deceased. She has stated that
the deceased had sustained injuries on his head, back and hand, though
she could not specify the weapon carried by each accused or the
number of blows inflicted. She stated that the place of occurrence was
at the bank of river Sone, about half a kilometer from her house and
that the deceased was found lying partly inside and partly outside a pit.
She has further stated that she herself sustained about 10–12 lathi
blows and that Uday also sustained an injury on his head. She stated
that the occurrence arose out of a dispute regarding tying of a boat and
that there was no land dispute between the parties.
P.W.-2-Shukar Ram has deposed that the occurrence took place
about five years ago, on Sunday, at about 4.00 P.M. At that time, he was
grazing cattle near the road. He stated that Dilip and Uday were tying
boat at the bank of river Sone, which was objected to by Rambriksh,
who abused them. Thereafter, Deepan Lakhan, Ashish and Ramesh also
arrived armed with Bhala, Barchha and stick. On hearing the
commotion, Kailash came there. He has further stated that the accused
persons assaulted Kailash with Bhala, Barchha and stick, causing him
to fall down. In the meantime, his wife Shanti arrived and the accused
persons also assaulted her. Thereafter, the accused persons fled away
from the place of occurrence. Kailash was initially taken to the village
8
2026:JHHC:26735
on cot and thereafter to Kandi Hospital, where he died during
treatment.
In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he had
previously deposed in other cases, but could not remember how many.
He stated that Hariharpur O.P. was about 2 km from Sri Nagar village
and that he had informed the Chaukidar rather than the police. At the
time of the incident, he was grazing cattle on Government land and,
although he shouted for help, he did not attempt to save anyone and
could not name the villagers who came to the spot. He has stated that
members of Dilip’s family and Kailash’s wife also came there and that
he disclosed the names of the assailants to the police. He has further
stated that Ramashish and Ramesh were not present at the place of
occurrence and that they were subsequently made accused by the police
on the basis of Uday’s statement. He has also admitted that he had not
seen Dilip being assaulted. According to him, the accused persons came
one after another—first Deepan, then Rambriksh, and thereafter
Lakhan and nobody else came to the spot. He stated that the dispute
arose over the tying of a boat, followed by an exchange of words and
then an assault, with the quarrel starting suddenly. He also stated that
Ramesh is presently working in Hindalco.
P.W.-3-Dilip Chaudhary has deposed that the occurrence was of
about five years prior at about 4:00 P.M. He stated that he had brought
his boat from the other side of the Sone River and had tied it to a peg in
the field of Deepan. Deepan objected to the same and abused him,
asking why he had fixed the peg there. He replied that he would
9
2026:JHHC:26735
remove the peg. Thereafter, he came onto the road and raised an alarm,
on hearing which his father and brother Uday Chaudhary came there. In
the meantime, Deepan Chaudhary, Rambriksh, Ramashish, Lakhan and
Ramesh, five persons in all, came to the spot and started assaulting his
father and brother indiscriminately with sticks. On his alarm, Sukan
and his mother also came there. When his mother attempted to save his
father, the accused persons assaulted his mother with sticks as well.
After the assault, the accused persons fled away from the place of
occurrence. Thereafter, villagers, including Ashok Chaudhary and
others, arrived at the spot. His father, brother and mother were taken to
Hariharpur O.P., where a requisition for their treatment was issued.
They thereafter went to Garhwa Hospital, where his father died at about
9:00 P.M. His father's post-mortem examination was subsequently
conducted. He has further stated that the police recorded his statement.
According to him, his father had sustained an injury on his head from
which flesh had protruded, besides injuries on his arm and back.
In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had taken a boat to
Parchha across the Sone River, left there at about 3:30 P.M., and
reached the place of occurrence around 4:00 P.M. About five minutes
after he tied the boat in Deepan’s field, Deepan arrived. He also stated
that he had told the police that Ramashish, Lakhan and Ramesh were
also among those who assaulted them. According to him, he was
assaulted first, followed by his father who came after hearing his alarm,
and then his brother. Even after his father fell, all five accused
allegedly continued assaulting him. He could not specify the exact
10
2026:JHHC:26735
number of stick blows. He further stated that, after the Sub-Inspector
issued a requisition, they first went to Kandi Hospital and then
to Garhwa by jeep and that his brother remained unconscious
throughout the night.
P.W.-4-Uday Chaudhary is the informant of the case. He has
deposed that on 17.07.2000 (Sunday) at about 4:00 P.M., he was at a
distance of about 20 steps from the place of occurrence. His younger
brother Dilip was tying a boat on the bank of the river. At that time,
accused Deepan Chaudhary objected to the tying of the boat and
slapped Dilip, whereupon Dilip raised an alarm. On hearing the alarm,
his father and mother reached the place of occurrence. Thereafter,
Deepan Chaudhary, Ramesh, Ashish, Rambriksh and Lakhan started
assaulting his father and mother indiscriminately with sticks. When he
reached the spot and attempted to rescue them, the accused persons also
assaulted him. He sustained injuries on his head, stomach and right
hand. He further stated that his father's head was severely injured and
flesh was oozing from the injuries. He has further deposed that he
became unconscious as a result of the assault and regained
consciousness at the Government Hospital, Garhwa, at about 4:00 P.M.
on the following Monday. The police came to the hospital and recorded
his statement. As he was experiencing difficulty in signing the
statement, his thumb impression was obtained thereon. He has stated
that he could not ascertain when his father died. Bigan Chaudhary was
also admitted in the hospital and had put his thumb impression on the
statement. He has further stated that thereafter the police went to the
11
2026:JHHC:26735
village and recorded his restatement. He identified the accused persons,
stating that Deepan Chaudhary and Ramesh were present in court and
that he could identify the remaining accused persons as well. He has
further stated that he was producing the X-ray plate in support of his
injuries and that he was subsequently treated at Ranchi. He has also
stated that his father died as a result of the occurrence.
In his cross-examination, he has stated that he returned from
Ranchi after about 15 days of the occurrence, where he had been
treated by Dr. K. K. Sinha. He has further stated that after being
discharged from Garhwa, he went to his home and thereafter proceeded
to Ranchi for further treatment. He has stated that his father died on
19.09.2000. He has further stated that Bhawnathpur is about 8
kilometres from his village and has a hospital, whereas Kandi is about 2
kilometres away. He could not say how he was brought from Kandi to
Garhwa. He stated that at the time of the occurrence, he was about 20
feet away from the place of occurrence and was grazing cows. He could
not say which accused was carrying a sword or a bhala, nor could he
state who assaulted first. He has stated that five persons had assaulted
them and that he had sustained three injuries in all, besides several
blows with sticks. He has denied the defence suggestion that he had
quarrelled with his father and had thereafter obtained private treatment.
He has also denied that he was concealing the fact that the assault was
committed with a bhala and sword and further denied having been
treated by a private doctor. He has denied the suggestion that Deepan
also had a boat. He could not say whether more passengers travelled by
12
2026:JHHC:26735
Deepan's boat and fewer passengers travelled by their boat.
P.W.-5-Birendra Kumar Singh has deposed that on 19.09.2000,
the inquest report of the deceased, Kailash Chaudhary, was prepared by
the police in his presence. He signed the same. This is the carbon copy
of the said inquest report. He identifies his signature, which has been
marked as Exhibit-1 .
In his cross-examination, he has stated that he was acquainted
with Kailash Chaudhary. He has further stated that Uday Chaudhary
and his father, Kailash Chaudhary, had remained at Hariharpur on the
night of the occurrence. However, they did not tell him the names of the
assailants. He has further stated that when the F.I.R. was recorded at
Garhwa, he was present there and both Uday and he signed the F.I.R.
Uday had not stated the names of Deepan and Ramesh.
P.W.-6-Bigan Chaudhary has deposed that Kailash Chaudhary
died at Garhwa Sadar Hospital about five years ago. The police
prepared the inquest report and he put his thumb impression on it. He
has further stated that there was an injury on the forehead of the dead
body of Kailash Chaudhary.
In his cross-examination, he has stated that Kailash Chaudhary
and his family members were not present in his village on the night of
the occurrence. They were in Kandi. He has further stated that on the
next day, at about 8:00 A.M., he came to Garhwa Hospital. Birendra
Singh was also present with him. Dilip told them how the occurrence
had taken place and who had assaulted them. They had been treated at
Kandi during the night.
13
2026:JHHC:26735
th
P.W.-7-Dr. Jwala Prasad Singh has deposed that on 19
September, 2000, he was posted as Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital,
Garhwa. On that day, at 12.15 P.M., he has conducted autopsy on the
dead body of Kailash Chaudhary (deceased) and found the following
injuries:-
(i) Lacerated wound 3¼" x 1/5" x skin deep right side of
forehead.
(ii) Abrasion 6" x 4" on right shoulder posterior aspect,
(iii) Abrason 2" x 1" posterior aspect of right elbow,
(iv) Lacerated wound 1¼" x 1/4" posterior aspect of right
forearm.
On dissection scalp blood and blood clot were present under the
scalp. Blood and blood clot present under layer of dura mater skull
nothing abnormal.
Cause of death - The death was caused by shock and
haemorrhage due to above injuries. All the injuries were opined to be
simple in nature.
Weapons used - Hard and blunt substance, such as lathi , stone,
etc.
Time elapsed since death 12 to 24 hours. This post-mortem
report is in his handwriting and bears his signature, which is marked as
Exhibit-2 .
P.W.-8-Suresh Chaudhary has deposed that the incident about
five years ago, he had heard about an assault committed by Deepan
Chaudhary upon Kailash Chaudhary and Uday Chaudhary. He further
14
2026:JHHC:26735
stated that Kailash Chaudhary subsequently died at Garhwa.
P.W.-9-Dr. Ajay Kr. Jha has examined Shanti Devi on
18.09.2000 and found the following injuries:-
(i) Bruise 2" x 1/2" on left scapular region
(ii) Abrasion 3/4" x 1/4" over occipital region of scalp
She also complained of pain over the body.
Age of injuries was about six hours.
Nature of injuries simple caused by hard and blunt substance
such as lathi .
On the same day, he has also examined Uday Chaudhary and
found following injuries:-
(i) Swelling 3" x 2" right temporo parietal region of scalp.
(ii) Swelling 1 ½" x 1/2" left cheek.
He also complained pain over chest. Age of injury about six
hours old. Nature-opinion reserved for injury No.(i) other was simple
caused by hard and blunt substance, such as lathi .
Supplementary injury report of Uday Chaudhary–X-ray plate
dated 19.09.2000 showed depressed fracture of parietal bone of skull.
Hence injury is grievous in nature caused by hard and blunt substance
such as lathi .
He has further stated that injury report of Shanti Devi as well as
injury report of Uday Chaudhary and the supplementary injury report
of Uday Chaudhary all were prepared in his handwriting and bear his
signature, which are marked as Exhibits-3, 4 and 4/1 respectively. The
X-ray plate dated 19.09.2000 of Uday Chaudhary also bears his
15
2026:JHHC:26735
signature, which is marked as Exhibit-4/2 .
P.W.-10-Dr. Kishore Chandra Chaudhary has examined Uday
Chaudhary and found following injuries:-
(1) Swelling and tenderness
(a) 10 c.m. x 5 c.m. on the left side of the interior scalp.
(b) 7 c.m. x 4 c.m. on the right side of the interior scalp.
(c) 10 c.m. x 10 c.m. on the upper part of the middle chest.
(2) Bruise
(a) 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. on the back of the neck.
He has opined that age of injury was within 24 hours. The injury
was caused by hard and blunt substance, such as lathi and danda. The
nature of injury was simple.
He has proved the injury report in his handwriting and signature,
which is marked as Exhibit-5 .
(3) On the same day, he has further examined Shanti Devi and
found following injuries:-
(1) Bruises
(a) 3 c.m. x 3 c.m. on the top of right shoulder
(b) 7 c.m. x 3 c.m.,
(c) 5 c.m. x 3 c.m. –Both on the upper part of the right side of
the back.
(2) Swelling and tenderness
(a) 3 c.m. x 3 cm. on the middle of scalp.
He has further opined that the age of injury was within 24 hours.
It was caused by hard and blunt substance. The nature of injury was
16
2026:JHHC:26735
simple.
He has proved the injury report in his handwriting and signature,
which is marked as Exhibit-5/1 .
(4) On the same day, he has also examined Kailash Chaudhary
and found following injuries:-
(i) Stiched wound 10 c.m. x 2 c.m. on the right side of anterior
scalp,
(ii) Lacerated wound 7 c.m. x 1 cm. x 1 c.m. on the back upper
part of right forearm.
(iii) Bruise and swelling 7 c.m. x 4 c.m. on the upper and lower
eye lid of right eye.
(iv) Clotted blood was present in both the nostril and mouth.
He has further stated that the injured was unconscious.
He has opined that the age of injury was within 24 hours and
injury Nos. (i) & (v) caused by unknown. Injury Nos. (iv) & (v) caused
by unknown. Injury Nos. (ii) & (iii) caused by hard and blunt substance
such as lathi .
Nature of injury
Injury Nos. (ii) and (iii) were simple in nature.
Injury Nos. (i) and (iv) could not be decided.
Injury No.(v) was grievous in nature.
He has proved the injury report in his handwriting and signature,
which is marked as Exhibit-5/2 .
P.W.-11-Kameshwar Prasad is an Advocate Clerk. He has
deposed that the fardbeyan bears the handwriting and signature of S.I.
17
2026:JHHC:26735
Rajanikant Jha, which is marked as Exhibit-6 . He further stated that the
endorsement on the fardbeyan bears the handwriting and signature of
Sindhu Paswan, the then O/C of Bhawnathpur, which is marked as
Exhibit- 6/A . He has further stated that the formal F.I.R. bears the
handwriting and signature of the then O/C, Sindhu Paswan, which is
marked as Exhibit-7 .
P.W.-12-Rajendra Chaudhary has deposed that the occurrence
had taken place about eight years prior to his deposition. On the day of
the occurrence, he was at his house. The incident took place at about
4:00–4:30 P.M. He has further stated that Dilip Chaudhary had tied his
boat on the bank of the Sone River, to which Deepan objected.
However, Dilip did not pay heed to his objection, whereupon Deepan
slapped him. Dilip thereafter narrated the incident to his parents at his
house. On this, Kailash Chaudhary went to inquire from Deepan about
the matter. An exchange of hot words took place between them. In the
same transaction, Deepan, Ramesh, Ashish, Rambriksh and Lakhan
assaulted Kailash with lathi . On hearing the cries of Kailash, Uday
Chaudhary also went there to rescue him, whereupon the accused
persons also assaulted him with sticks. Thereafter, Shanti went to the
place of occurrence and she was also assaulted by them. As a result of
the assault, Kailash Chaudhary fell down and started bleeding. He has
further stated that he along with other villagers, took Kailash and Uday
to Kandi, from where the doctor referred them to Garhwa. Kailash
Chaudhary died at Garhwa Hospital. Uday Chaudhary was referred to
Ranchi for treatment, where he received medical treatment.
18
2026:JHHC:26735
P.W.-13-Gauri Shankar Chaudhary has deposed that the
occurrence took place on 17.07.2000, which was a Sunday, at about
4:00 P.M. He was near the Sone River and also had a boat. He further
stated that Dilip Chaudhary was tying his boat on the land of Deepan.
Deepan objected to this, but Dilip did not pay heed to his objection.
Thereafter, Deepan slapped Dilip. Dilip then went into his nearby hut.
The father of Dilip asked Deepan about the incident. At this, Deep
Narain Chaudhary assaulted Kailash with a stick. Rambriksh
Chaudhary, Ram Lakhan Chaudhary, Ramashish Chaudhary, and
Ramesh Chaudhary also assaulted Kailash Chaudhary with a Farsa,
Kudal, and Talwar. When Uday Chaudhary went to save him, they also
assaulted Uday. When Shanti Devi came there, she too was assaulted
by the accused. Uday Chaudhary sustained a bleeding injury. However,
he did not notice any blood on the body of his father. Thereafter, all
three injured persons were taken to Hariharpur O.P. and then to Kandi
Hospital. From Kandi, they were referred to Garhwa. During the course
of treatment, Kailash died.
P.W.-14-Ashok Chaudhary has deposed that the occurrence
took place about eight years ago at about 04:00 P.M. He was in the
village at that time. He has further stated that the wife of Kailash
Chaudhary asked him to take Kailash to a doctor. Thereafter, they went
to village Dagar. The compounder refused to treat him, whereupon they
went to Hariharpur O.P. Uday Chaudhary, his mother, and Kailash were
accompanying him. Kailash had sustained an injury on his head, which
was bleeding. Uday had also sustained an injury on his head. His
19
2026:JHHC:26735
mother had received a simple injury. Shanti Devi did not disclose the
names of the assailants. He was declared hostile.
P.W.-15-Mular Devi has deposed that the occurrence took place
about eight years ago at about 04:00 P.M., when she was collecting cow
dung. She further stated that the wife of Kailash had gone towards the
riverbank to see a boat and thereafter, Kailash also went there. Kailash
asked Deepan why he had pushed his son into the water. Deepan
replied by asking who had made such an allegation. Kailash stated that
his son had told him so. Deepan then told Kailash that the dispute could
be resolved in the morning. When Kailash questioned why he should go
then, Deepan assaulted him with a Bhakuli, i.e., a stick having an iron
portion attached to it. Kailash was struck on his back, resulting in
bleeding. Thereafter, Rambriksh assaulted Kailash on his temple, as a
result of which Kailash started writhing in pain. Uday came forward to
save Kailash, but Rambriksh also assaulted Uday, causing an injury to
his head. She has further stated that she thereafter went to give water to
Kailash and noticed that blood was coming from his mouth.
On the other hand, D.W.-1, Ravindra Singh has deposed that on
17.09.2002 at about 5:00 P.M., he was at his home. He has further
stated that the house of Suryadeo Singh is in his neighbourhood and
that his son, Akhilesh Singh, is a quack (Jhola Chhap Doctor). He
further stated that he found Uday Chaudhary, Kailash Chaudhary, his
wife, and his younger son being treated there. He talked to Uday, who
told him that a quarrel had taken place in the family. However, Uday
did not disclose who had assaulted them. He has further stated that
20
2026:JHHC:26735
there is a police outpost in his village. He has stated that they remained
there throughout the night and that, in the morning, after the death of
Kailash Chaudhary, he did not know where they had gone. He has
further stated that Kandi is about 3½ kilometres from his village and
that there is a Government Hospital and a police station there. He also
stated that he had disclosed all these facts to the police.
D.W.-2, Bishambhar Chaudhary has deposed that on
17.09.2000, after 3:00 P.M., Uday Chaudhary told him that some
quarrel had taken place in the family and that he was going for private
treatment. He has further stated that Uday told him that if they went to
the Government Hospital, they would be in trouble. He has stated that
the police had enquired from him and that he had disclosed these facts
to the police.
16. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the
evidence available on record, it appears that the prosecution has been
able to establish the occurrence and the participation of the appellants
therein beyond reasonable doubt. The ocular testimony of P.Ws.-1, 2, 3,
4, 12, 13 and 15, when considered in its entirety, substantially supports
the prosecution case with regard to the assault upon the deceased
Kailash Chaudhary and the other injured persons. The injury of the
injured witnesses also stands corroborated by the medical evidence.
17. So far as the death of Kailash Chaudhary is concerned, the post-
mortem report, duly proved by P.W.-7, discloses a lacerated wound on
the forehead, besides abrasions and lacerated wound on the other parts
of the body. On dissection, blood and blood clot were found under the
21
2026:JHHC:26735
scalp and under the dura mater. The doctor opined that the death was
caused due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from the injuries found
on the person of the deceased and that the injuries were caused by hard
and blunt substance such as lathi or stone. Thus, the medical evidence
does not create any break in the chain of circumstances connecting the
occurrence of death of the deceased rather, it lends assurance to the
ocular account regarding the assault.
18. The specific opinion of P.W.-7 is that the death was caused by
shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries noticed during the post-
mortem examination. The nature and location of the injuries, coupled
with the presence of blood and blood clots beneath the scalp and under
the dura mater, sufficiently corroborate the prosecution version
regarding the assault upon the deceased.
19. The evidence of the injured witnesses assumes considerable
significance. P.W.-4 Uday Chaudhary himself sustained injuries in the
occurrence, which are corroborated by the medical evidence, including
the depressed fracture of the parietal bone. Similarly, the injuries
sustained by Shanti Devi also stand medically corroborated. Their
presence at the place of occurrence is thus not merely asserted but is
supported by contemporaneous medical evidence.
20. The mere fact that the Investigating Officer was not examined
cannot, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, be treated as
fatal to the prosecution when the material witnesses have been
examined and the occurrence is otherwise duly proved by reliable
ocular and medical evidence.
22
2026:JHHC:26735
21. So far as the conviction under Sections 147, 323, 307 and 304
Part-I read with Section 149 of the I.P.C. is concerned, this Court finds
that the learned Trial Court has appreciated the evidence available on
record in its proper perspective.
22. In view of the above discussion and reasons, I do not find any
legal substance in the point of arguments raised on behalf of the
appellants and no merit in this appeal to take a different view and
interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial
Court. As such, conviction and sentence of the appellants passed by the
learned Trial Court is hereby upheld and confirmed.
23. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed .
24. The appellants are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled and they
are directed to surrender before the concerned Trial Court within two
months from the date of this judgment to sustain the remaining period
of sentence awarded to them, failing which, learned Trial Court shall
take all coercive steps for arrest and detention of the appellants for
serving the remaining period of sentence awarded to them.
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 03/09/2026
Arpit/ N. A. F. R.
Uploaded on 05/09/2026
23