SANJAY YADAV ALIAS SANJAY PRASAD YADAV vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
- Case type
- CRIMINAL APPEAL (DIVISION BENCH)
- Decided on
- 09-03-2026
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:6305-DB
( Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence
dated 14.02.2020 (sentence passed on 19.02.2020) passed by
Sri Vishwa Nath Shukla, Addl. Sessions Judge-IV, Koderma in
S.T. No. 75/2016. )
………….
Death Reference No. 01 of 2020
The State of Jharkhand ... Appellant
Versus
1. Sanjay Yadav @ Sanjay Prasad Yadav , S/o Sri Bal
Kishun Mahto @ Balkrishn, R/o Vill- Khabh,
P.O. Nandudih, P.S.- Satgawan, Dist.- Koderma.
2. Rambriksh Yadav @ Rambriksh Pd. Yadav , S/o Late
Wajir Raut, R/o Vill- Dumri, P.O. Nanudih,
P.S.- Satgawan, Dist.- Koderma.
… Respondents
With
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 337 of 2020
1. Sanjay Yadav @ Sanjay Prasad Yadav , S/o Sri Bal
Kishun Mahto @ Balkrishn, R/o Vill- Khabh,
P.O. Nandudih, P.S.- Satgawan, Dist.- Koderma.
2. Rambriksh Yadav @ Rambriksh Pd. Yadav , S/o Late
Wajir Raut, R/o Vill- Dumri, P.O. Nanudih,
P.S.- Satgawan, Dist.- Koderma.
... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … Respondent
----
PRESENT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
----
In D. Ref. No. 01 of 2020.
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
For the Convicts : Mr. B.M. Tripathi, Sr. Adv.
D. REF. 01 OF 2020 WITH CR. APPEAL(DB) NO. 337 OF 2020
1
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:6305-DB
In Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 337 of 2020.
For the Appellants : Mr. B.M. Tripathi, Sr. Adv.
For the Resp. : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
----
Dated : 09/03/2026
JUDGMENT
Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. :
1. Heard Mr. B.M. Tripathi, learned senior counsel for
the appellants in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 337 of 2020 and Mr. Pankaj
Kumar, learned P.P.
2. Death Reference No. 01 of 2020 has been put up
before us for confirmation of the death sentence imposed upon
both the convicts under Section 366 Cr.P.C.
3. One of the convicts (appellant) has preferred a
separate appeal being Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 337 of 2020
which is directed against the judgment and order of conviction
and sentence dated14-02-2020 (sentence passed on 19-02-2020)
passed by Sri Vishwa Nath Shukla, learned Additional Sessions
Judge-IV, Koderma in S.T. Case No. 75/2016, whereby and
whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offences
under Sections 147, 148, 458/149 and 302/149 IPC and have
been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 02 years for the
offence under Section 147 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for 03
years for the offence under Section 148 IPC, rigorous
imprisonment for 14 years along with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- each
for the offence under Section 458/149 IPC and in default in
payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for 2 years and they
have also been sentenced to death under Section 302/149 IPC
along with the fine of Rs. 50,000/- each and in default in
payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for 02 years.
4. The prosecution case arises out of the written report
of Suresh Kumar dated 26-09-2004 in which it has been stated
that on 25-09-2004 at about 8:00PM, 20-25 persons variously
D. REF. 01 OF 2020 WITH CR. APPEAL(DB) NO. 337 OF 2020
2
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:6305-DB
armed had attacked his house. The informant along with
Kapildeo Prasad Yadav, Neeraj Kumar alias Sudhir Kumar were
in the terrace of the house and on seeing the armed miscreants,
the informant jumped from the terrace and hid himself. The
informant had seen his father Kapildeo Prasad Yadav being
dragged by Darogi Prasad Yadav, who had a farsa, Ranjit Prasad
Yadav who had a gadasa and Bipin Prasad Yadav who had a rifle,
and taken outside the house after which the hands of Kapildeo
Prasad Yadav were tied with a gamchha and thereafter his head
was chopped off with a‘farsa. It has been alleged that the brother
of the informant Neeraj Kumar alias Sudhir Kumar was also
dragged towards the door by Sunil Prasad Yadav who was armed
with a farsa and rifle, Nawlesh Prasad Yadav who was armed with
a gadasa and Rajesh Prasad Yadav who was armed with a farsa
and rifle and after tying his hands with the lungi he was wearing,
he was thrown on the ground and Nawlesh Prasad Yadav and
Rajesh Prasad Yadav pressed Neeraj Kumar to the ground, while
Sunil Prasad Yadav cut off his head with a farsa and Nawlesh
Prasad Yadav assaulted him with a gadasa on his abdomen. It
has further been alleged that when Anoj Kumar started raising
an alarm, his hands were tied by Rambriksh Yadav with a
gamcha after which Rajkumar Prasad Yadav and Ram Prasad
Yadav thrashed Anoj Kumar to the ground and Rambriksh Yadav
cut his throat with a farsa. The assailants thereafter caught hold
of Sakaldeo Yadav and his hands were also tied with a gamcha
by Umesh Yadav and after throwing him on the ground, Sanjay
Yadav and Umesh Yadav pressed him, while Anil Yadav cut his
neck with a farsa and Sanjay Yadav assaulted him on his
abdomen with a gadasa. At the time of the occurrence, Baldeo
Prasad Yadav was instigating the others not to spare anyone. The
miscreants, while fleeing away, had thrown bombs and
D. REF. 01 OF 2020 WITH CR. APPEAL(DB) NO. 337 OF 2020
3
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:6305-DB
threatened of eliminating the other persons.
Based on the aforesaid allegations, Satgawan P.S.
Case No. 34/04 was instituted under Section 396 IPC, Section
3/4 Explosive Substances Act and Section 17 of the Criminal
Law Amendment Act. On completion of investigation, charge
sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken, the case
was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered
as S.T. No. 75/2016. Charge was framed against the accused
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 458/149, 380/149, 302/149 IPC
and Section 3/5 Explosive Substances Act which was read over
and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution has examined as many as eleven
witnesses in support of its case:
P.W.1 Manoj Yadav has stated that the incident is of
25-09-2004 at 7:30PM and he was in his kitchen garden tending
to the corn when he saw 20-25 persons variously armed going
towards the house of Suresh Yadav. The said persons included
the Area Commander of MCC Sunil Yadav as well as Nawlesh
Yadav, Rajesh Yadav, Anil Yadav, Sanjay Yadav, Umesh Yadav,
Mahavir Yadav, Darogi Yadav, Ranjit Yadav, Bipin Yadav,
Rambriksh Yadav, Ramprasad Yadav and others. He had seen
the miscreants taking away Kapildeo Yadav after which Darogi
Yadav thrashed Kapildeo Yadav to the ground and severed his
head with a farsa. The accused persons by exploding bombs and
raising slogans fled away. Sunil Yadav had blasted bombs and
he also had a rifle in his possession. He along with the villagers
had seen the dead body of Kapildeo Yadav with his neck chopped
off. When he and the others had gone to the house of Kapildeo
Yadav, he had seen the dead bodies of Sudhir Yadav, Anoj Yadav
and Sakaldeo Yadav.
D. REF. 01 OF 2020 WITH CR. APPEAL(DB) NO. 337 OF 2020
4
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:6305-DB
In cross-examination, he has deposed that the
distance between his house and the place of occurrence is about
100-125 feet. He had seen the incident from his terrace. The
incident had occurred just a few distance from the hillock which
is situated in front of his house. It was a moonlit night and the
visibility was clear to a considerable distance. All the persons
who were present had seen the occurrence. Kapildeo Yadav was
assaulted and he was dragged by Ranjit Yadav and Bipin Yadav
and near Malwa Pahadi his head was severed from his body. He
had not seen any other person standing in their terrace and
witnessing the incident. Not a single villager had come out from
their house at the time when the Naxals were shouting and
raising slogans. Kapildeo Yadav was his grandfather in relation.
Out of the accused persons, Darogi Yadav, Ranjit Yadav, Bipin
Yadav, Rambriksh Yadav, Nawlesh Yadav, Rajesh Yadav, Anil
Yadav, Area Commander Sunil Yadav and Ram Prasad Yadav are
of his own village.
P.W.2 Rambriksh Prasad Yadav did not support the
case of the prosecution and he was declared hostile by the
prosecution.
P.W.3 Saroj Devi has stated that on the date of the
incident she was at her parents' house in Dumri and the others
present were her parents and her brother Sakaldeo. About 15
persons including Rambriksh Yadav, Sanjay Yadav, Bipin Yadav,
Darogi Yadav, Sunil Yadav and Ranjit Yadav had come to her
house and knocked at the door. As soon as she opened the door,
her brother Sakaldeo was asked to accompany them for some
queries. When Sakaldeo was being taken away, she and her
mother followed them but they were asked to go back by these
persons. After about one hour she could come to know that
Sakaldeo has been murdered. When she and the others went to
D. REF. 01 OF 2020 WITH CR. APPEAL(DB) NO. 337 OF 2020
5
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:6305-DB
the house of Kapildeo Yadav, she found the dead body of
Kapildeo, Anoj and Sakaldeo lying there and all three had their
heads severed from their bodies.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that it was a
moonlit night. She does not know the name of every person in
her village. When she had reached the place where the murders
were committed, the accused persons had fled away by then. Her
statement was never recorded by the Police. On the date of the
incident, all the extremists had their faces covered.
P.W.4 Mahesh Kumar has stated that the incident is
of 25-09-2004 at 7:30PM. It was a moonlit night and he was
sitting in the terrace of his house. The house of Kapildeo Yadav
is adjacent to his house and Kapildeo Yadav was also sitting in
the terrace of his house and was listening to the radio when all
of a sudden, 25-30 persons came and some of them entered into
his house. The younger son of Kapildeo Yadav, namely, Neeraj
Kumar was caught by Nawlesh Kumar, Rajesh Kumar and Sunil
Kumar after which they tied the hands of Neeraj Kumar with the
lungi he was wearing. He has stated that Kapildeo Yadav and
Suresh Kumar had jumped from the terrace, but Kapildeo Yadav
was caught by Darogi Yadav, Ranjit Yadav and Bipin Yadav,
while Suresh Yadav managed to flee away. He had also seen
Sakaldeo Yadav being caught hold of by Sanjay Yadav, Umesh
Yadav and Anil and the hands of Sakaldeo Yadav were tied at the
back with a gamchha. When Anoj Yadav appeared and offered
the miscreants money, he was intercepted by Ram Prasad Yadav,
Raj Kumar Yadav and Rambriksh Yadav and his hands were also
tied with a gamchha. He has stated that Sunil Yadav, Rajesh
Yadav and Nawlesh Yadav had thrashed Sudhir Yadav to the
ground and cut his neck with a farsa. Anil Yadav cut the neck of
Sakaldeo Yadav, while Sanjay Yadav and Umesh Yadav had
D. REF. 01 OF 2020 WITH CR. APPEAL(DB) NO. 337 OF 2020
6
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:6305-DB
caught hold of him. Anoj Yadav was thrown on the ground by
Ram Prasad Yadav, Sanjay Yadav and Rambriksh Yadav and
Ram Prasad Yadav had cut his neck. He has also stated that
Kapildeo Yadav was taken to Malwa Pahadi and he had followed
them and he had seen Darogi Yadav severing the head from the
body of Kapildeo Yadav. After committing the murders, all the
accused persons had fled away by raising slogans and by firing.
He has identified Rambriksh Yadav and Sanjay Yadav in the
dock.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not
given any statement to the Police. He knows Sanjay Yadav
because he lives in the adjacent village. He had seen the
occurrence from his terrace. The distance between his house and
that of the informant is about 30 feet. He had raised an alarm on
witnessing the incident. There was no enmity between Sanjay
Yadav and three of the deceased. The face of none of the
miscreants were covered. He had hid himself out of fear in the
staircase going towards the terrace. All the accused persons had
seen him but nothing untoward was done to him. The distance
between the house of Suresh Yadav and Malwa Pahadi is
250 meters. He had not raised any alarm when the accused
persons were taking away Kapildeo Yadav towards Malwa
Pahadi.
P.W.5 Sarswati Devi has stated that it was 7:30PM
and she was in her house along with her grandson Anoj and son
Sudhir Kumar, while in the terrace her husband and son Suresh
were present. All of a sudden there was a commotion at which
her son Sudhir opened the door. As soon as the door was opened,
Sunil had caught hold of Sudhir. She had seen 30-35 persons
surrounding her house. The hands of her son Sudhir were tied
at the back by a Gamchha after which Rajesh and Nawlesh
D. REF. 01 OF 2020 WITH CR. APPEAL(DB) NO. 337 OF 2020
7
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:6305-DB
pushed him on the ground and thereafter Sunil severed the head
of her son from his body and Sudhir Yadav gave a farsa blow on
his abdomen. Anoj was caught hold of by Ramprasad and
Rajkumar, while Rambrikshsh cut his neck. The head of
Sakaldeo was chopped off by Umesh and Sanjay. When on
hearing the commotion, her husband came he was forcibly taken
to Malwa Pahadi where also his head was severed from his body.
She has identified Sanjay and Rambriksh in the dock and has
also claimed to identify the other accused persons.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that it was a
moonlit night. Her husband Kapildeo Yadav was murdered near
Malwa Pahadi by Darogi Yadav. Several persons had assembled
at the time of the incident, but she cannot name anyone because
she was not in a fit mental state of mind. Neither her husband,
nor she had any enmity with Sanjay Yadav. She had seen Sanjay
Yadav along with the other accused persons. She has deposed
that there are 06 cameras in her house, out of which 02 cameras
are not functional. The persons who had come had their faces
covered and had also put paint on their faces but even then, she
identified everyone. She had earlier deposed against Sunil Yadav
in Court. She has a political rivalry with Rambriksh Yadav.
P.W.6 Dayanand Prasad Yadav has stated that the
occurrence had taken place on 25-09-2004 at 7:30PM. It was a
moonlit night and he was returning with grasses cut from his
field and as soon as he reached near his house, he had seen Sunil
Yadav, Nawlesh Yadav, Rajesh Yadav, Anil Yadav, Sanjay Yadav,
Mahavir Yadav, Ramprasad Yadav, Rajkumar Yadav, Rambriksh
Yadav, Bipin Prasad Yadav, Ranjit Yadav, Darogi Prasad Yadav,
and 20-25 other persons variously armed near the house of
Kapildeo Prasad Yadav. He, out of fear, had hid himself. He has
stated that after sometime when he reached near the house of
D. REF. 01 OF 2020 WITH CR. APPEAL(DB) NO. 337 OF 2020
8
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:6305-DB
Kapildeo Prasad Yadav, he had seen the dead bodies of Neeraj
Yadav, Sakaldeo Yadav and Anoj Yadav and all had their heads
severed from their bodies. When he reached Malwa Pahadi, he
had found the dead body of Kapildeo Prasad Yadav.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had
reached the place of occurrence 15 minutes after the incident
had already taken place. His father was on litigating terms with
the accused as a case was going on between them. He had not
witnessed any of the murders. He has a dispute with the
maternal uncle of Sanjay Yadav.
P.W. 7 Suresh Kumar is the informant who has stated
that on 25-09-2004 at 7:30PM he was sitting in his terrace and
along with him were his father and brother Neeraj alias Sudhir.
At that point of time, he had seen some persons climbing on the
terrace and he had jumped from the terrace and hid himself
behind a wall. He had seen Darogi Prasad Yadav, Ranjit Yadav,
Bipin Yadav variously armed dragging his father outside the
house and they had also tied the hands of his father Kapildeo
Prasad Yadav with a gamchha. His father was taken towards
Malwa Pahadi where Darogi Prasad Yadav had severed the head
of Kapildeo Prasad Yadav. Sunil Yadav, Nawlesh Yadav and
Rajesh Yadav who all were armed with various weapons had
dragged Neeraj alias Sudhir outside and while Nawlesh Yadav
and Rajesh Yadav had pinned him to the ground, Sunil Yadav
had cut his neck with a farsa. When Anoj Kumar raised a cry of
alarm, he was also caught hold of by the miscreants and
Rambriksh Yadav had tied his hands with a gamchha and while
Raj Kumar Yadav and Ram Kumar Yadav pinned him to the
ground, Rambriksh Yadav had cut his neck with a farsa resulting
in his death. He has stated that Sakaldeo Yadav was accosted by
Umesh Yadav, Sanjay Yadav and Anil Yadav and Anil Yadav had
D. REF. 01 OF 2020 WITH CR. APPEAL(DB) NO. 337 OF 2020
9
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:6305-DB
cut his neck with a farsa, while Sanjay Yadav gave a gadasa blow
on his abdomen. Baldeo Prasad Yadav was instigating the others
to eliminate everyone. The incident had occurred because of
refusal to give levy to the MCC. He had witnessed the incident.
The occurrence was also witnessed by Saraswati Devi, Mahesh
Kumar, Saroj Devi, Dayanand Prasad and Chandrika Prasad
Yadav. He had given a written report to the Police Station which
has been marked ‘X’ for identification. He had put his signature
on the inquest reports prepared by the Police at the place of
occurrence.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that the house
of Chandrika is at a distance of 20-25 feet from his house. The
house of Rambriksh Yadav is at a distance of 50 feet from his
house. There was a cordial relationship between Rambriksh
Yadav and his father. He had not identified the accused persons
in the light of a torch. He had identified all the accused persons
because it was a moonlit night. The distance between his house
and Malwa Pahadi is 500 meters. He had followed the accused
persons while they were taking his father to Malwa Pahadi, but
the accused persons had not seen him. He has deposed that he
had informed about the incident to the Police Station at 9:00PM.
At the time of the incident, all the persons of the village had
assembled which included Rajeshwar Tiwari, Bholaram, Chhotu
Paswan, Shiv Paswan, Mahendra Pandey, Shahdeo Yadav,
Basudeo Yadav, Pradeep Yadav, Ramjai Yadav, Madan Yadav,
Birendra Yadav, Shankar Yadav, Munshi Yadav, Arjun Yadav
and others. Sanjay Yadav is a member of MCC and he has
documentary proof of the same. He had jumped from the terrace
and had hid himself behind a wall. He had come out after one
hour when the accused persons had left. There was a gap of
1-1.5 hours between the occurrence which took place in front of
D. REF. 01 OF 2020 WITH CR. APPEAL(DB) NO. 337 OF 2020
10
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:6305-DB
his house and the occurrence at Malwa Pahadi. The Police had
not seized any weapons at the place of occurrence. He had seen
the members of MCC from a distance of about 10 feet.
P.W.8 Chandrika Prasad Yadav has stated that on
25-09-2004 at 7:30PM, he had gone to answer the call of nature
and on returning, he had seen on torch light several persons
going who were raising slogans. He had thereafter reached the
house of Suresh where he had seen the dead body of Sudhir
Yadav, Sakaldeo Yadav and Anoj Yadav. He had seen the dead
body of Kapildeo Yadav near Malwa Pahadi. He had identified
Sunil Yadav, Rajesh Yadav, Nawlesh Yadav, Anil Yadav, Ram
Prasad Yadav and Vijay Yadav as the persons who were raising
slogans.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not
witnessed any incident. The distance between his house and the
house of Kapildeo Yadav is about 2.5 feet. He had not heard from
anywhere that the assailants belonged to MCC. The incident is
of 14 years back. He had seen the accused Sanjay Yadav in the
dock for the first time.
P.W.9 Bindeshwari Das was posted as an Officer-in-
charge in Satgawan P.S. and on 26-09-2004 he had registered
Satgawan P.S. Case No. 34/04 based on the written report of
Suresh Yadav and he had taken over the investigation of the
case. He has proved his endorsement in the written report which
has been marked as Exhibit-1. The formal FIR has been proved
and marked as Exhibit-2. In course of investigation, he had
recorded the re-statement of the informant and had also
inspected the place of occurrence which is at village Dumri in the
open courtyard of the house of Suresh Yadav where the dead
bodies of Neeraj Kumar alias Sudhir Yadav, Sakaldeo Yadav and
Anoj Yadav were found lying. He has proved the inquest reports
D. REF. 01 OF 2020 WITH CR. APPEAL(DB) NO. 337 OF 2020
11
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:6305-DB
which have been marked as Exhibits-3, 4, 5 and 6. The second
place of occurrence is at a distance of 300 yards from the first
place of occurrence. He had recorded the statements of Mahesh
Kumar, Saraswati Devi, Rambriksh Yadav, Dayanand Prasad
Yadav, Saroj Devi, Manoj Kumar, Chandrika Prasad Yadav,
Suresh Paswan and Shiv Mahto. In course of investigation, he
had apprehended Sunil Yadav on 27-11-2004 who had recorded
his confessional statement implicating himself as well as the
co-accused in the murders. He had received the post-mortem
report from Sadar Hospital, Koderma and consequent to his
transfer, he had handed over the investigation to Inspector
Madho Ram Bhargav.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that the
distance from the place of occurrence to the Police Station is
04km. He had received information about the incident at
10:00PM and he had reached the place of occurrence at 05:00AM
on the next day. It is possible on a moonlit night to see the second
place of occurrence from the first place of occurrence. There are
8-10 houses adjacent to the first place of occurrence. It was a
moonlit night when the incident had taken place.
P.W.10 Madho Ram Bhargav had taken over the
investigation on 20-01-2005 and had gone through the case
diary. He had recorded the statements of Suresh Yadav,
Chandrika Prasad Yadav, Dayanand Prasad Yadav, Mahesh
Kumar, Saroj Devi and Shiv Mahto. The witness Rambriksh
Yadav had stated that he was having his meal when on hearing
a cry of alarm, he had come out of his house and had seen the
accused persons variously armed, surrounding the house of
Suresh Yadav. When he had tried to go towards the house of the
informant, somebody had made a firing and he was also abused
at which, out of fear, he had gone back to the safety of his house.
D. REF. 01 OF 2020 WITH CR. APPEAL(DB) NO. 337 OF 2020
12
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:6305-DB
After sometime, he had heard slogans and the sound of bomb
blasts and after the accused persons went away, he had seen the
dead bodies of 04 persons. He had handed over further
investigation to police inspector Babu Kumar.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had
recorded the statement of Dr. Saryu Yadav who had stated that
Rambriksh Yadav was getting treatment in his clinic on the date
of incident from evening till late at night. He had not found any
connection of Rambriksh Yadav with the Naxal organization in
course of his investigation. In the statement of Sunil Yadav, the
name of Sanjay Yadav does not figure.
P.W.11 Dr. Shri Bhagwan Sudhanshu was posted as
a Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital, Koderma and on
26-09-2004, he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of
Kapildeo Prasad Yadav and had found the following:
External Examination -
A. Sharp cutting by sharp weapon 1” x 3” on neck.
Internal Examination -
A. Head - NAD
B. Heart, Liver, Lungs, Kidney - Pale
C. Stomach - Empty
D. Intestine - Gas and fluid.
E. Urinary bladder - Empty
F. Ribs - NAD
G. Vessels - NAD
Trachea - Cut by sharp weapon.
The cause of death was opined to be on account of
hemorrhage and shock.
On the same day, he had conducted autopsy on Neeraj
Kumar alias Sudhir Kumar and had found the following injuries
D. REF. 01 OF 2020 WITH CR. APPEAL(DB) NO. 337 OF 2020
13
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:6305-DB
on his person:
External examination-
A. Sharp cutting by sharp weapon 1x3 on neck.
B. 6 inches stab wound on the stomach and intestine
part came out.
C. Abrasion on the left forearm 10 inches x 3 inches.
D. Abrasion on the left interior shoulder joint 2 inches x
2 inches.
Internal Examination -
A Head and Skull - NAD
B. Heart - Both chamber emtpy.
C. Lungs, Liver, Spleen, Kidney - Pale
D. Stomach - Tear and empty
E. Intestine - Gas and fluid.
F. Urinary bladder – Empty
The cause of death was opined to be due to
hemorrhage and shock. The injuries may be caused by farsa and
gadasa.
He had also conducted post-mortem on the dead body
of Anoj Prasad Yadav and the following injuries were found on
his person:
External examination-
A. Sharp cutting by sharp weapon 1” x 3” on neck.
Internal Examination-
A Head and Skull - NAD
B. Heart - Both chamber empty.
C. Lungs, Liver, Spleen, Kidney - Pale
D. Stomach - empty
E. Intestine - Gas and fluid.
F. Urinary bladder – Empty
The cause of death was opined to be due to shock and
D. REF. 01 OF 2020 WITH CR. APPEAL(DB) NO. 337 OF 2020
14
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:6305-DB
hemorrhage. The injury may be caused due to farsa and gadasa.
On the same day, he had conducted autopsy on the
dead body of Sakaldeo Prasad Yadav and had found following
injuries:
External examination -
A. Head - NAD. Sharp cutting by sharp weapon 1” x 3”
on neck. 6” stab wound in the abdomen and intestine
came out.
Internal Examination -
A Head and Skull - NAD
B. Heart - Both chamber empty.
C. Lungs, Liver, Spleen, Kidney - Pale
D. Stomach - Tear and empty
E. Intestine Gas and fluid.
F. Urinary bladder - Empty
The cause of death was opined to be due to shock and
hemorrhage and the injuries may be caused by farsa and gadasa.
The post-mortem reports have been proved and marked as
Exhibits- 7, 7/1, 7/2 and 7/3 with objections.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that no medical
board was constituted for conducting autopsy. He had personally
conducted autopsy on all four dead persons.
6. The statements of the accused were recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they have denied their complicity
in the occurrence.
7. The defence has examined four witnesses in support
of its case:
D.W.1 Sanjay Kumar Gupta has stated that he has a
friendship with Sanjay Kumar Yadav which goes back 25 years.
He had gone to Jhumri Tilaiya on 25-09-2004 to attend a political
meeting and Sanjay Prasad Yadav was also with him. He, Sanjay
D. REF. 01 OF 2020 WITH CR. APPEAL(DB) NO. 337 OF 2020
15
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:6305-DB
Prasad Yadav and others had sat near a telephone booth where
they had snacks and all had stayed there from 6:30PM to
10:00PM. Sanjay Yadav is a nice person and at this point of time
he was unemployed.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he runs his
business in Kolkata. He has been asked to give his testimony by
the family members of Sanjay Yadav.
D.W.2 Binod Kumar has stated that from 6:30PM to
10:00PM Sanjay Yadav was with him and the others who were
present were Om Prakash Yadav and Sanjay Gupta.
In cross-examination, he has been deposed that he
does not know the date of occurrence. He later on says that the
incident had occurred on 25th September. He has given his
evidence on the request of the father of Sanjay Yadav.
D.W.3 Om Prakash Yadav has also stated about
Sanjay Yadav being present with him on 25-09-2004 from
6:30PM to 10:00PM.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that on the
request of the father of Sanjay Yadav he is giving his evidence.
D.W.4 Mahendra Kumar has stated that on
25-09-2004, he had taken Rambriksh Yadav to the clinic of
Dr. Saryu Prasad and he was given treatment till 01:00AM. On
26-09-2004, he had left at 7:30AM and after dropping Rambriksh
to his house at Dumri, he had returned back to Pirra, his village.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that though
there is a government hospital at Satgawan which is at a distance
of 3-4 km, Rambriksh was not taken to the said hospital. He
cannot submit any documentary proof regarding the treatment
which Rambriksh had undergone in the clinic of
Dr. Saryu Prasad.
8. It has been submitted by Mr. B M Tripathi, learned
D. REF. 01 OF 2020 WITH CR. APPEAL(DB) NO. 337 OF 2020
16
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:6305-DB
senior counsel for the appellants that as per the informant
(P.W.7), he had given a written report to the Police on 25-09-2004
itself but the said report which is the first information of the
occurrence has been suppressed by the prosecution as the
written report which forms the basis of institution of Satgawan
P.S. Case No. 34/04 is dated 26-09-2004. The CID which had
taken over the investigation had submitted Final Form against
09 accused persons despite allegations of specific overt act made
against Rajkumar Yadav, Ramkumar Yadav, Anil Yadav and
Umesh Yadav. It has been submitted that in spite of the evidence
of P.W.1, P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.7 specifically naming some of the
accused not charge-sheeted, the prosecution did not invoke
Section 319 Cr.P.C., while at the same time, the appellants were
convicted based on the same evidence though there was no
distinguishing feature in both the category of the assailants. The
plea of alibi as generated by the appellants have not at all been
appreciated by the learned trial court. Mr. Tripathi has submitted
that despite charge having not been framed against the
appellants for the murder of Kapildeo Prasad Yadav and Neeraj
Kumar alias Sudhir Kumar but it has been framed for
committing the murder of Sanoj Kumar and Ramsakal who were
not even the victims of the case. In the 313 Cr.P.C. statement of
the appellants, questions were put regarding the murder of
Kapildeo Prasad Yadav and Neeraj Kumar alias Sudhir Kumar
though there was no charge for committing their murders. Mr.
Tripathi, learned senior counsel for the appellants has submitted
that the identification of the appellants is encompassed in a
cloud of mist as it was 7:30PM when the incident had occurred
and as per some of the witnesses the faces of the miscreants were
covered which makes such identification impossible. Even P.W.7
was hiding behind a wall for one hour and he, in no
D. REF. 01 OF 2020 WITH CR. APPEAL(DB) NO. 337 OF 2020
17
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:6305-DB
circumstance, could have given such a vivid description of the
occurrence specifying the role of each of the appellants. The
eyewitness account does not deserve any serious consideration
because of its inherent weaknesses and fallibility which have not
been properly appreciated by the learned trial court and hence
both the appellants deserve to be acquitted from the charges
levelled against them.
9.
Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P.P. has submitted that
four brutal murders were committed in a daredevil fashion by the
appellants and others and their presence as well as the active
participation in the murders have been chronicled in the
evidence of the eyewitnesses. It has been submitted that an error
or omission in the charge cannot be fatal to the prosecution case
as the defence has failed to show that such error or omission has
prejudiced the defence. The manner of occurrence, as depicted
by the eyewitnesses, has been corroborated by the post-mortem
report. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P.P. has submitted that it was
a moonlit night when the incident had taken place in a rural set-
up and in general, the rural people have a keen sense of
observation and, therefore, the identification of the appellants by
the eyewitnesses cannot be disbelieved.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties and has also perused the trial court records.
11. Multiple murders had taken place in the evening of
25-09-2004 in a most diabolical and grotesque manner possible
with heads severed from the trunk. P.W.7 in his written report
dated 26-09-2004 has given a vivid description in the manner in
which the incident of four murders had taken place and the
degree of participation in the murders by the appellants and
other accused persons. In fact, all the murders seem to have a
common thread to the effect that their hands were tied at the
D. REF. 01 OF 2020 WITH CR. APPEAL(DB) NO. 337 OF 2020
18
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:6305-DB
back with lungi or gamchha, they were pinned down to the
ground and their heads were severed from their bodies.
12. P.W.3 and P.W.6 have stated about the presence of the
appellants along with the other accused persons. Though P.W.6
has not given any specific instance of any overt act, but P.W.3
has stated that the accused persons had taken away Sakaldeo
Yadav and after one hour she could come to know that Sakaldeo
has been murdered. P.W.3 in her cross-examination has deposed
that the face of all the miscreants were covered. She has also
stated that the Police had not recorded her statement. P.W.6 has
stated about an enmity with the maternal uncle of the appellant
no. 1. The evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.6 does not conclusively
prove that the appellants were involved in the murders.
13. P.W.1, P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.7 claim themselves to
have seen either all the four murders or a part of the incident
and their evidence seems to be the pivotal aspect of the case of
the prosecution.
14. P.W.1 in his examination-in-chief has stated about
seeing the appellants and the other accused persons going
towards the house of the informant (P.W.7). He had seen the
miscreants taking away Kapildeo Yadav and Darogi Yadav
committing his murder. As per his cross-examination, the
incident of murder of Kapildeo Yadav was seen from his terrace
and the distance of the place of occurrence from the place from
where he had witnessed the incident was about 100-125 feet.
Despite such distance, the visibility, according to this witness,
was good as it was a moonlit night. There was a hillock situated
in front of his house and the murder had taken place a few
distance ahead of the hillock. Though it was a moonlit night, but
the obstacle in front of the house of P.W.1 and the distance of
the place of occurrence from his house would put his evidence in
D. REF. 01 OF 2020 WITH CR. APPEAL(DB) NO. 337 OF 2020
19
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:6305-DB
the realm of doubt. This view of ours would be further fortified
by the fact that the house of P.W.7 is at a distance of 20 feet from
the house of P.W.1 as stated by P.W.1 and the first place of
occurrence is in front of the house of P.W.7 which, as per P.W.9
(first I.O.), the distance between the first place of occurrence and
the second place of occurrence was about 300 yards which can
be converted to mean 900 feet.
15.
So far as P.W.4 is concerned, he has described in
details all the murders but his cross-examination reveals
otherwise. He was also in the terrace but out of fear he had hid
himself in the staircase going towards the terrace. He claims that
the accused persons had seen him but did not cause any bodily
harm to him. He has stated that the distance between the first
place of occurrence and the second place of occurrence is
250 meters. Though the distance has been exaggerated when we
consider the evidence of P.W.9 (first I.O.), but at the same time
we cannot lose sight of the fact that the incident had taken place
at 7:30PM which was witnessed by him from behind a staircase
which suggests the absurdity of such evidence more so, when a
descriptive version has been narrated by him specifying the role
played by each of the accused.
16. P.W.5 is the wife of the deceased Kapildeo Yadav
whose version of the events is once again very descriptive, but in
her cross-examination, she has stated that all the miscreants
had covered their faces and had also put paint on their faces.
She has admitted that she was not in a fit mental state of mind
which is understandable considering the fact that four of her
family members were hacked to death and in the touchstone of
such mental instability, identification of the appellants and
specifying the role played by each of the accused would make
such evidence vulnerable. Moreover, the possibility of false
D. REF. 01 OF 2020 WITH CR. APPEAL(DB) NO. 337 OF 2020
20
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:6305-DB
implication of the appellant no. 2 cannot be ruled out since she
had a political rivalry with the appellant no. 2. The evidence of
P.W.5, therefore, cannot be said to be reliable and trustworthy.
17. The informant has been examined as P.W.7 and he
has also given an eyewitness account of each of the murders and
his examination-in-chief is more or less consistent with the
contents of his written report. However, in his cross examination,
his status as an eyewitness, falters as on seeing the miscreants
he had jumped from the terrace and hid himself behind a wall
and he had come out of his hiding place after one hour only when
the accused persons had left. This would run contrary to his
eyewitness account, even to the extent of seeing his father
murdered in Malwa Pahadi which was at a considerable distance
from his house. The written report of P.W.7 is dated 26-09-2004,
while the incident had taken place on 25-09-2004 and P.W.7 has
stated about submitting a written report in the Police Station in
the night of 25-09-2004 itself. It can, therefore, be construed that
the written report given on 25-09-2004 is the first information,
but the prosecution seems to have suppressed such report. In
this context, we may refer to the case of Allarakha Habib
Memon & Ors. v. State of Gujarat reported in (2024) 9 SCC
546 in which, it has been held as follows:
“19.
Since the Police Constable, Demistalkumar
(PW 12) claiming to be an eyewitness to the
heinous assault had reported at the police station
with the crime weapons, there was no reason
whatsoever as to why his statement would not
have been recorded immediately on his arrival at
the police station. From the circumstances
discussed above, a reasonable doubt is created in
the mind of the Court that the statement of
D. REF. 01 OF 2020 WITH CR. APPEAL(DB) NO. 337 OF 2020
21
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:6305-DB
Demistalkumar (PW 12) would definitely have
been recorded in the daily diary (roznamcha) but
his version may not have suited the prosecution
case and that is why, the daily diary entry was
never brought on record. Non-production of the
daily diary is a serious omission on part of the
prosecution.
20. There cannot be any doubt that the first
version of the incident as narrated by the Police
Constable, Demistalkumar (PW 12) would be
required to be treated as the FIR and the
complaint lodged by Mohammad Arif Memon (PW
11) would be relegated to the category of a
statement under Section 161 CrPC and nothing
beyond that. The same could not have been
treated to be the FIR as it would be hit by Section
162 CrPC. Evidently thus, the prosecution is guilty
of concealing the initial version from the Court and
hence, an adverse d inference deserves to be
”
drawn against the prosecution on this count.
18. The defence witnesses have shown exuberance in
raising the plea of alibi so far as the appellants are concerned,
but in view of the findings recorded above, we refrain ourselves
from making any observation with respect to such plea.
19. Incoherent, inconsistent exaggerations and
contradictions seems to be the hallmark of the evidence of the
purported eyewitnesses and when the identification of the
appellants as members of the unlawful assembly and of their
participation in the murders has a sense of incertitude, the
benefit of doubt has to accrue in favour of the appellants. The
impugned judgment having not considered the finer nuances of
D. REF. 01 OF 2020 WITH CR. APPEAL(DB) NO. 337 OF 2020
22
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:6305-DB
the evidence of the witnesses becomes erroneous in law and
consequently, we hereby set aside the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 14-02-2020 (sentence passed on
19-02-2020) passed by Sri Vishwa Nath Shukla, learned
Additional Session Judge-IV, Koderma in S.T. Case No. 75/2016.
20. Consequently, Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 337 of 2020 is
allowed . Death Reference No. 01 of 2020 is answered
accordingly.
21. Since the appellants are in custody, they are directed
to be released immediately and forthwith, if not wanted in any
other case.
22. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands closed.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)
(DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
th
Dated the 09 Day of March, 2026
Preet/N.A.F.R.
Uploaded on: 10 /03/2026.
D. REF. 01 OF 2020 WITH CR. APPEAL(DB) NO. 337 OF 2020
23