Budhan Asur vs The State Of Jharkhand

2026:JHHC:31655-DB



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1580 of 2017

[ Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated
03.03.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II,
Lohardaga in Sessions Trial No. 12/2016 ]

Budhan Asur, Son of Late Charo Asur, Resident of
Pokhar, Pokarpath, Domarpath, P.O. & P.S. – Kisko,
District – Lohardaga (Jharkhand).


… … Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent
…..

For the Appellant : Mr. Girish Mohan Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P.
…..
P R E S E N T
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

JUDGMENT
th
Dated: 29 October, 2026

By Court:- The instant appeal is directed against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
03.03.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-II, Lohardaga in Sessions Trial No. 12/2016,
whereby and whereunder the appellant has been
convicted for the offences punishable under Sections
302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced
to undergo R.I. for life along with a fine of Rs.
10,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of the
I.P.C. with default stipulation and further, R.I. for 10

1

2026:JHHC:31655-DB


years along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence
under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code with
default stipulation. Both the sentences were directed
to run concurrently.
2. We have heard Mr. Girish Mohan Singh, learned
counsel representing the appellant and Mrs. Priya
Shrestha, learned Spl.P.P. representing the State, at
length, and have gone through the materials available
on record.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
witnesses are interested witnesses as they have some
enmity with the appellant. He submits that there was
no intention of the appellant to get murder of the
deceased. He also submits that the witnesses said
that this appellant had behavioural problems. Thus,
this may be ground to implicate this appellant in this
case. He lastly submits that the right hand of the
appellant was not functioning properly. Thus, it is
impossible to accept the fact that the appellant will
give a hammer blow on the head of the deceased.
4. Learned Spl.P.P. representing the State, opposes the
prayer and submits that the trial court has very
correctly considered all the judgment and has come to
right finding which cannot be assailed. She submits
that there are four eye-witnesses to the occurrence

2

2026:JHHC:31655-DB


and their deposition cannot be doubted. The medical
evidence is also corroborated the ocular evidence. She
submits that in case where there is direct eye –
witness, there is no necessity to establish motive. So
far as the physical condition of the appellant is
concerned, she submits that same witness has stated
that the appellant can do all work with his right hand
though some of the fingers might have lost strength.
Thus, she submits that this judgment, which is well-
discussed and well-reasoned does not need any
interference.
5. The prosecution case is based upon the fardbeyan of
the informant Manga Asur (P.W.-5) is that he is
working in BKB Company as labourer. On 05.10.2015
at about 8:30 A.M., his wife Lalita Asur went for her
work working as labourer for construction of Road
under NREGA and his two years old son was also with
her and he was going to Kisko for bank work. When
he reached near Daharbati more, he received a phone
call from his maternal uncle namely, Kagu Asur that
his wife Lalita Asur was assaulted by a heavy hammer
by Budhan Asur (appellant). Thereafter, the informant
rushed to the place of occurrence and saw that his
wife was lying dead. She had sustained injury on her
head and the labourers, who were working with his

3

2026:JHHC:31655-DB


wife, informed that Budhan Asur had assaulted his
wife with hammer repeatedly, due to which she
sustained injury and died. They further informed him
that the appellant also assaulted his son, aged about
two years, with stone causing him grievous injury and
was taken to Sadar Hospital for his treatment. The
appellant was apprehended at the place of occurrence
by the co-villagers.
6. On the basis of fardbeyan, Kisko P.S. Case No. 66 of
2015 was registered for the offence under Sections
302 / 307 / 325 of the I.P.C. and after investigation,
the I.O. of the case submitted charge sheet against
the accused. After taking cognizance, the case was
committed the court of Sessions, where charges were
framed against the accused for the aforesaid offences.
7. The prosecution has examined altogether ten (10)
witnesses, who are as follows:-
P.W.-1 : Somari Asur.
P.W.-2 : Manju Asur.
P.W.-3 : Ramdhan Nagesia.
P.W.-4 : Jhamal Nagesia.
P.W.-5 : Manga Asur.
P.W.-6 : Dr. Rajendra Prasad Sahu.
P.W.-7 : Baldeo Nagesia.
P.W.-8 : Dr. Kaushal Kumar Singh.

4

2026:JHHC:31655-DB


P.W.-9 : Kulmania Nagesia.
P.W.-10 : Navin Kumar Pandey (I.O.).
8. Some documents were also exhibited in this case,
which are as follows:-
Exhibit-1 : Signature of Manga Asur on
Fardbeyan.
Exhibit-1/1 : Fardbeyan.
Exhibit-2 : Post-mortem Report.
Exhibit-3 : Injury Report of Anand Asur.
Exhibit-4 : Formal F.I.R.
Exhibit-5 : Carbon copy of Inquest Report.
Exhibit-6 : Search-cum-Seizure List.
Exhibit-7 : SFSL Report.
Material Exhibit-I : Iron Hammer.
Material Exhibit-II : Blood Stained Stone.
9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the trial
court has recorded the statement of the accused
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and the accused in his
defence has denied the occurrence and pleaded his
innocence.
10. The trial court, after hearing both the parties, vide its
judgment of conviction and order of sentence,
convicted the appellant and sentenced him, as
delineated in the opening paragraph of this judgment,
which has been challenged in this Criminal Appeal.

5

2026:JHHC:31655-DB


After hearing the parties, we have also gone through
11.
the evidence documentary and oral evidence.
12. The F.I.R. is at the behest of the P.W.-5, who is
husband of deceased. He states that his wife was
working in a construction work and when he received
information that his wife has been assaulted on the
head with a heavy hammer (used for crushing stones)
by this appellant, he reached at the place of
occurrence and found his wife lying dead. Resulting in
lodging of this F.I.R. He was also informed that his
child, aged about 02 years, was also assaulted with
stone by this appellant causing him grievous injury.
13. As noticed earlier, there are 10 witnesses in this case.
P.W.-1 to P.W.-4 are eye witnesses. Their presence
and place of occurrence have been established as they
themselves said that they were also working with the
deceased at the same place. They stated that they
were working within a distance of few feet from the
deceased where this appellant came and gave blow on
the head of the deceased by heavy hammer, which
was used for breaking stones to make stone chips.
They all stated that the infant child of the deceased
was also with her and he was also assaulted by stone.
P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 have stated in
same manner and there is no discrepancies in them

6

2026:JHHC:31655-DB


and the cross-examination is also not brought
anything to on record to disbelieve them. Though the
witnesses have stated that there are some behavioral
problems with the appellant, but there is nothing to
suggest that he was lunatic and was suffering from
any mental disorder . Though, P.W.-3, in para-8, had
stated that there was some problem in the finger of
the right hand of this appellant, but on a query made
by the Court, he clarified that this appellant was
doing all his work with his right hand. Further, we
find that there is no medical document produced by
this appellant in support that his right hand or finger
of right hand is not working.
14. Thus, from what has been discussed above, it is clear
that P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 are eye
witnesses and they have seen this appellant giving a
blow on head of the deceased by hammer and
assaulted the child also.
15. Further, it is evident that the appellant was
apprehended on the spot.
16. So far as the medical evidence is concerned, P.W.-6 is
the Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem of
the deceased. He found injury on the left mandible
region and temporal region and there was bleeding
from left ear and there was contusion on left temporal

7

2026:JHHC:31655-DB


region. This injury corroborates with the ocular
evidence as the case of the prosecution is that the
appellant came and gave hammer blow on the head of
the deceased. The Doctor also found fracture on the
left petrus bone, blood clot in left ear and blood clot in
temporal region. The opinion of the Doctor is that the
injuries found on the body can be caused by hammer.
Thereafter, he said that the injury is enough in
ordinary course of nature to cause death. In his cross-
examination, nothing fruitful has been extracted by
the defence. This evidence clearly suggests that the
death is homicidal in nature.
17. P.W.-8 is the Doctor, who had examined the infant
child of the deceased. He found swelling over occipital
region and the child was semi-conscious and not
responding to vocal commands. The Doctor suspected
inter cranial injury and thus, referred to RIMS,
Ranchi immediately. He opined that the injury could
be due to hit over occipital region by hard and blunt
object. In his cross-examination, it has been stated
that if a child falls very heavily on the stone, this
injury can happen. It is case of the prosecution that
this child was hit on the head by stone. Thus, this
medical evidence so far as child is concerned also
corroborates the ocular evidence of P.W.-1 to P.W.-4.

8

2026:JHHC:31655-DB


P.W.-10 is the I.O., who has recorded and fardbeyan
18.
given by Manga Asur and has identified the same
marked as Exhibit-1/1. He has further identified the
formal F.I.R. marked as Exhibit-4 and the inquest
report of the deceased marked as Exhibit-5.
Thereafter, he examined the place of occurrence and
seized one hammer stained with blood, one stone
which was also blood stained and blood stained mud
and prepared seizure list. He has identified the
seizure list marked as Exhibit-6 and sent the
materials to SFSL, Ranchi for examination. He has
also recorded the statement of witnesses, who
according to him stated in same manner as witnesses
P.W.-1 to P.W.-4 had stated. He had seized the
material exhibits and had also proved the place of
occurrence. He found hammer with blood stained and
stones with blood stains. The FSL report i.e. Exhibit-7
also suggest that the blood found to be human blood.
19. All these evidences emphatically read to be only
conclusion that this appellant had committed the
offence. Thus, the prosecution has proved the guilt of
the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt as there is
direct evidence.
20. Thus, we find no merit in this appeal, which is hereby
dismissed .

9

2026:JHHC:31655-DB


Pending I.A., if any, stand disposed of.
21.
Trial Court Record be transmitted back to the Court
22.
concerned.



(Ananda Sen, J.)



( Pradeep Kumar Srivastava , J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
th
Dated, the 29 October, 2026 .
Sunil / N.A.F.R.
Uploaded on 04/11/2026
10