NAGESHWAR PANDEY And ORS vs STATE OF JHARKHAND

2026:JHHC:31852

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1255 of 2008
[ Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
nd
27.09.2008 & 30.09.2008 respectively passed by learned 2 Additional
Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in S.T. No. 285 of 1992 ]
--------
1. Shiv Bachan Pandey, son of Sri Nageshwar Pandey
2. Vidya Pandey, son of Basudeo Pandey
3. Sundar Singh, son of Shatrughan Singh
All residents of Village & P.O.-Chak, P.S.-Chauparan, District-
Hazaribagh
... ... Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Dhalo Pandey, son of Late Kaleshwar Pandey, R/o Mouza Ghosla,
P.O. & P.S.-Chauparan, District-Hazaribagh, Jharkhand
… … Respondents
-----
P R E S E N T
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
--------
For the Appellants : Mr. A.K. Das, Sr. Advocate
For the State : Mr. V.S. Sahay, A.P.P.
--------
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on 10.08.2026 Pronounced on 30/10/2026

1. Heard Mr. A.K. Das, learned senior counsel for the appellants
and Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. It is to be mentioned at the very outset that out of five
appellants, appellant No.1, Nageshwar Pandey and appellant No.5,
Basant Pandey have died during pendency of this appeal and appeal
preferred by above named appellants has been abated. This appeal is
heard on behalf of three alive appellants renumbered as above.
3. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and
order of conviction and sentence dated 27.09.2008 & 30.09.2008
nd
respectively passed by learned 2 Additional Sessions Judge,
Hazaribagh in S.T. No. 285 of 1992 whereby and whereunder the
appellants have been held guilty for the offences under Section 304

2026:JHHC:31852

part-II/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for five years each for the offence under Section 304
part-II/34 of the I.P.C.
Factual Matrix
4. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a narrow campus is
that marriage ceremony of Kanhai Pandey, son of Bhuneshwar
Pandey, resident of Village Deoria, P.S. Chatra, District Hazaribagh
(now District Chatra), was scheduled to be solemnized on 05.05.1990
with one Sunita Pandey, daughter of Sri Sarju Pandey, resident of
Village Chak. It is alleged that on 06.05.1990, at about 04:00 A.M.
when marriage ceremony was going on in presence of bride and
groom party members respectively, in the meantime one Basudeo
Choubey, member of baraat party, threw a chocolate on aiming the
woman folk belonging to bride party which led an altercation between
both party members, but anyhow the dispute was resolved by
pacifying both the parties. It is further alleged that just after
conclusion of marriage ceremony rituals baraat party members
proceeded to janvasa situated near Kali Manda of Village-Chak then
at about 07:00 A.M. baraat party members, namely Gaya Pandey,
Bhagwan Pandey (died), Vidya Pandey, Bachan Pandey, Nagi Pandey,
Sundar Singh, Raj Karan Singh and Basant Pandey came and
surrounded Bhuneshwar Pandey (father of groom) and started
assaulting him by slaps and fists. In the meantime, his son Raj Kishore
Pandey (since deceased) came to rescue his father but all the accused
persons started assaulting to Raj Kishore Pandey mercilessly when he

2

2026:JHHC:31852

fell down then thrashed over his chest due to which he became
unconscious. It is alleged that several villagers intervened and pacified
the matter. The informant Dhalo Pandey (maternal uncle of groom)
requested the accused persons with folded hands to stop the scuffle
and assault thereafter injured Raj Kishore Pandey under unconscious
state was brought to police station thereafter sent to hospital and
written report was lodged.
On the basis of above written report, F.I.R. was registered for
the offences under Sections 143, 342, 323 & 307 of the I.P.C.
5. In the course of treatment, injured Raj Kishore Pandey
succumbed to his injuries. After conclusion of investigation, charge-
sheet was submitted against all eight named accused persons for the
offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307 & 302 of the I.P.C.
The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where S.T. No. 285
of 1992 was registered. Charges were framed against all the accused
persons under Sections 147, 323, 302/149 of the I.P.C. The accused
persons denied from charges and claimed to be tried.
6. During pendency of the trial, one co-accused Bhagwan Pandey
died and proceeding against him was dropped vide order dated
10.06.2008. The rest seven accused persons faced the trial.
7. In the course of trial altogether nine witnesses were examined
by the prosecution:-
P.W.-1-Bhuneshwar Pandey (father of deceased)
P.W.-2-Sarju Pandey (father of bride)
P.W.-3-Dhalo Pandey (informant of this case)

3

2026:JHHC:31852

P.W.-4-Basudeo Pandey
P.W.-5-Parmeshwar Pandey
P.W.-6-Birju Pandey
P.W.-7-Dr. Shashi Bhushan Singh (Dr. who conducted P.M.
Examination)
P.W.-8-Chandra Shekhar Agrawal
P.W.-9-Kundan Kumar (Advocate Clerk)
8. Apart from oral testimony of witnesses following documentary
evidence has also been adduced:-
(i) Exhibit-1 to 1/1- Signatures of Bhuneshwar Pandey
and Basudeo Pandey on fardbeyan
(ii) Exhibit-1/2-Signature of Dhalo Pandey on fardbeyan
(iii) Exhibit-2 to 2/1-Signatures of Bhuneshwar Pandey
and Basudeo Pandey on inquest report
(iv) Exhibit-3-Post-mortem report
(v) Exhibit-4 to 4/1-Injury reports of Kishor Pandey and
Bhuneshwar Pandey
(vi) Exhibit-5-Formal F.I.R.
(vii) Exhibit-5/1-Endorsement on the F.I.R.
9. On the other hand, defence has also examined four witnesses,
namely D.W.-1, Sakaldeo Singh, D.W.-2, Daya Nand Singh, D.W.-3,
Deoki Ram & D.W.-4, Jeevan Krishna Prasad.
Moreover, the following documentary evidences have also been
adduced by defence.
(i) Exhibit-A-Signature of Sakaldeo Singh on affidavit

4

2026:JHHC:31852

(ii) Exhibit-B-Signature of Dayanand Singh on affidavit
(iii) Exhibit-C-Signature of Deoki Ram on affidavit
(iv) Exhibit-D to D/4-Five affidavits
(v) Exhibit-E-Signature of Arun Kumar Pandey on
affidavit
(vi) Exhibit-F-Certified copy of S.T. 129/98
(vii) Exhibit-G-Certified copy of F.I.R.
(viii) Exhibit-H-Certified copy of S.T. 8/85
10. After conclusion of trial, the appellants were held guilty for the
offences under Section 304 part-II/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced as
stated above which has been assailed in this appeal.
Submissions on behalf of appellants: -
11. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is
unsustainable in law as well as on facts and is liable to be set aside, as
the learned Court below has failed to appreciate the material
contradictions, omissions and improvements in the statements of the
prosecution witnesses, particularly with regard to the place, time and
manner of occurrence. It has further been submitted that non-
examination of the Investigating Officer has seriously prejudiced the
defence and that the ocular evidence is not consistent with the medical
evidence, as P.W.7 did not find any external injury corresponding to
the alleged assault and the extradural haematoma was found on the
left parietal region, whereas P.W.8 stated about only a small abrasion
on the right side of the head. It has also been submitted that no

5

2026:JHHC:31852

specific overt act has been attributed to any particular appellant, the
allegations are general and omnibus, and no independent witness has
been examined. The prosecution witnesses being closely related and
interested, coupled with the admitted previous enmity between the
parties, their testimony requires cautious scrutiny. Learned counsel
has further submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish any
nexus between the alleged assault and the death of the deceased and
has failed to prove the case 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
materials 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 appellants suffers from any serious error of law
calling for any interference in this appeal?”


6

2026:JHHC:31852

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-Bhuneshwar Pandey is the father of the deceased. He
has stated that the marriage ceremony was going on during the night.
A fter the marriage, when the members of Barati party went to the
Janwasa at about 7:00 a.m., the accused persons, namely, Nagi
Pandey, Chowa Pandey, Gayaditya Pandey, Raj Karan Singh, Vidya
Pandey, Sundar Singh, Deva Pandey, Bachan Pandey and Basudeo
Pandey came there and started assaulting him, his son Raj Kishore
Pandey (the deceased) and Basudeo Choubey with fists and slaps.
When his son, Raj Kishore Pandey, fell to the ground, Chowa Pandey
climbed upon his chest and smashed him. His son became
unconscious. He was taken to the hospital, where, during the course of
treatment, he died on 07.05.1990 at Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh.
Thereafter, he went to the police station and gave his statement.
P.W.-2-Sarju Pandey, who is the father of bride, has stated that
when the Barati party went to the Janwasa , he heard a commotion.
Thereafter, he went to the Janwasa and saw Vidya Pandey carrying a
lathi , while Basant Pandey was fleeing towards his house. He also saw
Gaya Pandey, Bhagwan Pandey, Chowa Pandey, Daya Pandey, Nagi
Pandey and others coming out of the Janwasa . They were empty-
handed. The accused persons had assaulted Raj Kishore Pandey, as a
result of which he became unconscious. He was taken to the hospital

7

2026:JHHC:31852

and subsequently died at Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh.
P.W.-3-Dhalo Pandey is the informant in this case. He has
stated that an altercation took place during the marriage ceremony
over the throwing of a chocolate towards the Mandap. Although, the
matter was pacified and the marriage was completed, a quarrel again
took place at the Janwasa on 06.05.1990 between Bhuneshwar
Pandey and his son, Kishor Pandey, on one side and Gaya Pandey,
Vidya Pandey, Bhagwan Pandey, Bachan Pandey, Nagi Pandey,
Sundar Singh, and Basudeo Pandey on the other. When Kishor Pandey
intervened to save Bhuneshwar Pandey, Nagi Pandey, Gaya Pandey,
Vidya Pandey and Bhagwan Pandey assaulted him, causing him to fall
to the ground. They then mounted upon his chest, as a result of which
he became unconscious. He was taken to the hospital, where he died
on 07.05.1990.
P.W.-4-Basudeo Pandey has stated that after the marriage
ceremony was over, at about 7:30 a.m., the members of Baraati party
proceeded to Janwasa , where some members of Sarati also arrived.
Gaya Pandey started abusing and saying about the incident of
throwing chocolates towards girls. Upon this Bhuneshwar Pandey and
his son Raj Kishor Pandey were assaulted by Gaya Pandey, Vidya
Pandey, Bhagwan Pandey, Sundar Singh, Nagi Pandey, Bachni Pandey
and others. Thereafter, Kishore was lifted about ten yards from the
Janwasa and Vidya Pandey rushed and thrashed Raj Kishor Pandey on
the ground. The injured was brought by them to Chauparan Police
Station thereafter to Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh.

8

2026:JHHC:31852

P.W.-5, Parmeshwar Pandey has stated that the marriage
ceremony was going on during the night. After the marriage
ceremony, at about 6:00–7:00 a.m., Bhagwan Pandey, Vidya Pandey,
Nageshwar Pandey, Nagi Pandey, Gaya Pandey, Basudeo Pandey and
Basuni Pandey went to the Devisthan situated at the Janwasa . There,
Deva Pandey stated that they were leaving after insulting the honour
of their locality and said, “Beat them.” Sundar Singh also said, “Beat
them.” Thereafter, all the aforesaid seven persons assaulted
Bhuneshwar Pandey and caused injuries to him. When Kishor Pandey
went to rescue his father from the aforesaid persons, all the aforesaid
seven accused persons assaulted Kishor Pandey with lathi , wooden
posts, kicks and fists. They also climbed onto his chest and pressed
and assaulted him. Kishor Pandey became unconscious at the spot.
After the assault, all the accused persons left the place. Kishor Pandey
was taken to the hospital at Chauparan, where he was treated.
Thereafter, the doctor referred him to Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh,
where Kishor Pandey was died during treatment.
P.W.-6, Birju Pandey has stated that the members of the Sarati
party, namely, Nagi Pandey, Gaya Pandey, Chowa Pandey, Vidya
Pandey, Sundar Singh, Rajkaran Singh and Vasni Pandey came there
and taking out sticks from the ghoran , started assaulting Kishor
Pandey and Bhuneshwar Pandey. The members of the Sarati party
struck Kishor Pandey on kanpati, as a result of which he fell down
unconscious. When they reached the spot, they saw the aforesaid
persons assaulting Bhuneshwar Pandey and Kishor Pandey with

9

2026:JHHC:31852

sticks. They intervened and separated the parties and thereafter, he
along with Dhalo and Parmeshwar, took Kishor Pandey to a doctor at
Chauparan. On the advice of the doctor, they took him to Sadar
Hospital at Hazaribagh, where he subsequently died on 07.05.1990.
P.W.-7-Dr. Shashi Bhushan Singh has deposed that on
07.05.1990, he was posted as C.A.S. at Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh.
On that day, at 02:00 P.M., he has conducted autopsy on the dead body
of Raj Kishore Pandey (deceased) and found the following injuries:-
Both eyes opened, mouth partially opened, fist half clinched,
left hand old scar of burn.
On external examination:- There was no external mark of
injury.
On dissection:- extradural haemotoma over left side on the
parietal region. Other visceras (abdominal and others) were intact and
pale.
Time since death-within 12 hours. Cause of death due to shock
and haemorrhage due to above mentioned injures of brain matters due
to extradural haemotoma.
He has proved the post mortem report which is marked as
Exhibit-3 .
P.W.-8-Chandra Shekhar Agrawal has examined Raj Kishore
Pandey on 06.05.1990 and found the following injuries:-
(1) Patient was unconscious, restless bleeding from mouth and
nose.
(2) Swelling 2" x 2" on right side of scalp.

10

2026:JHHC:31852

Simple in nature caused by hard and blunt weapons.
He has opined that age of injury was within 12 hours.
On 13.05.1990, he also examined Bhuneshwar Pandey and
found the following injuries:-
(1) An old scratch 1" x 1/2" on the middle of scalp.
(2) Abrasion 1/2" x 1/2" on right iliac crest
(3) Complaint of pain on left thigh.
This witness has opined that the injury was simple in nature,
caused by hard and blunt substance and the age of injury is about one
week.
He has proved both the injury reports in his handwriting and
signature, which is marked as Exhibit-4 and 4/1 respectively.
P.W.-9-Kundan Kumar is an Advocate clerk. He has stated
that the formal F.I.R. is in the handwriting and signature of Shri
Shailendra Singh, the then Station House Officer of Chauparan and
the same has been marked as Exhibit-5 . He has further stated that
endorsement on F.I.R. is also in the handwriting of Sri Shailendra
Singh, the then S.H.O., Chauparan.
On the other hand, D.W.-1-Sakaldeo Singh has proved the
affidavit which bears his signature, which is marked as Exhibit- A .
D.W.-2, Daya Nand Singh has stated that this affidavit was
prepared at his instance and bears his signature, which he identifies.
The affidavit is marked as Exhibit-B .
D.W.-3, Deoki Ram has stated that his niece's wedding took
place on 05.05.1990 and Gayaditya Pandey was invited to the

11

2026:JHHC:31852

wedding. He was present at his place on the day of the wedding. This
affidavit was prepared at his instance and bears his signature, which
he identifies. The affidavit is marked as Exhibit-C .
D.W.-4, Jeevan Krishna Prasad has stated that this affidavit
was written by Sachcho Babu Munshi in his presence. It was written
at the instance of the deponent. Thereafter, the deponent signed it.
Advocate Shiv Kumar Prasad identified the deponent. The affidavit
was sworn before T.N. Sahay, Notary. The affidavit is marked as
Exhibits-D, D/1, D/2, D/3 and D/4 . This document bears the
signature of Arun Kumar Pandey. The affidavit is marked as
Exhibit-E .
16. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the
parties and carefully scrutinized the evidence available on record, this
Court finds that the incident arose out of an altercation during a
marriage ceremony, wherein the deceased, Raj Kishore Pandey, was
allegedly assaulted while intervening to rescue his father. However,
the allegations against the surviving appellants, Shiv Bachan Pandey,
Vidya Pandey and Sundar Pandey are general and omnibus and their
specific roles have not been established by cogent and reliable
evidence.
17. The medical evidence assumes considerable significance in the
present case. P.W.-7, Dr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, who conducted the
post-mortem examination, found no external mark of injury on the
body of the deceased but detected an extradural haematoma over the
left parietal region of the head, which was opined to be the cause of

12

2026:JHHC:31852

death due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from the said injury.
P.W.-8, Dr. Chandra Shekhar Agrawal, who had examined the
deceased earlier, noted swelling measuring 2" x 2" on the right side of
the scalp. The medical evidence, therefore, establishes that the
deceased sustained a fatal head injury, however, it does not establish
the identity of the person who caused the said injury or connect the
surviving appellants with the same.
18. The prosecution has alleged that eight accused persons
assaulted the deceased and that, after he fell down, they climbed upon
his chest and pressed it. However, the post-mortem report does not
disclose any injury corresponding to the alleged act of pressing the
chest. Further, the medical evidence does not satisfactorily corroborate
the allegation of a concerted assault by all the accused persons in the
manner alleged by the prosecution. None of the prosecution witnesses
has been able to attribute any specific and reliable overt act to the
surviving appellants so as to establish their participation in causing the
fatal injury. The main allegation regarding the infliction of the stick
blow has been attributed to another accused, who died during the
pendency of the appeal. In these circumstances, the general allegations
against the surviving appellants, without reliable evidence establishing
their individual participation are insufficient to sustain their
conviction.
19. The possibility of false implication of the surviving appellants
on account of the earlier altercation between the two groups cannot be
ruled out. Moreover, the non-examination of the Investigating Officer

13

2026:JHHC:31852

assumes significance in view of the defence challenge concerning
material contradictions, omissions and inconsistencies in the
prosecution evidence. Considered cumulatively with the general
nature of the allegations, the absence of reliable evidence attributing
specific acts to the surviving appellants and the lack of satisfactory
corroboration regarding their participation in the alleged assault, these
circumstances give rise to a reasonable doubt about their involvement
in the commission of the offence.
20. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to establish
beyond reasonable doubt that the surviving appellants shared the
common intention to commit the offence resulting in the death of the
deceased or constituted an unlawful assembly having any common
object as contemplated under Section 141 of the I.P.C., in furtherance
of which the alleged offence was committed.
21. The prosecution has also failed to establish a consistent and
reliable account identifying the person responsible for the fatal head
injury or proving the participation of the surviving appellants in the
assault in the manner alleged. The general and omnibus allegations,
the absence of reliable evidence establishing their specific overt acts,
the medical evidence and the other infirmities in the prosecution case,
when considered cumulatively, create a reasonable doubt regarding
their guilt. This Court, therefore, finds that the learned Trial Court
failed to properly appreciate these material aspects while recording
their conviction.
22. In view of the above discussion and reasons recorded

14

2026:JHHC:31852

hereinabove, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove
beyond reasonable doubt the charge under Section 304 Part II read
with Section 34 of the I.P.C. against the appellants, therefore, they are
entitled to the benefit of doubt.
23. Consequently, the impugned judgment of conviction and order
nd
of sentence passed by the learned 2 Additional Sessions Judge,
Hazaribagh, in G.R. Case No. 250 of 2009 is hereby set aside and this
appeal is allowed .
24. Appellants are on bail, as such they are discharged from the
liability of bail bonds and sureties are also discharged.
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 30/10/2026
Arpit/ N. A. F. R.
Uploaded on 30/10/2026


15