GOPINATH MUNDA vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
2026:JHHC:32623-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 631 of 2019
[Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
25.02.2019 and 02.03.2019 passed in S.T. No.76 of 2014 arising out of
Kuchai P.S. Case No.27 of 2013 by learned Sessions Judge, Seraikella
Kharsawan]
---------
Gopinath Munda, aged about 35 years, son of Panda Munda, resident of
village & P.O.-Champat Tola- Potolore, P.S.-Kuchai, District-Seraikella
Kharsawan (Jharkhand) ……Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand …. Respondent
----------
For the Appellants : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Deomani, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
---------
PRESENT
CORAM: SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
JUDGMENT
-----------
CAV On 26/10/2026 Pronounced On 06/11/2026
Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. We have already head Mr. Pradeep Kumar Deomani, learned counsel
for the appellant and learned P.P.
2. Instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and
sentence of the appellant dated 25.02.2019 and 02.03.2019 passed by
learned Sessions Judge, Seraikella Kharsawan in S.T. No.76 of 2014
arising out of Kuchai P.S. Case No.27 of 2013, whereby and
whereunder the appellant has been held guilty and sentenced for the
offence under section 302 of IPC and directed to undergo R.I. for life
Page 1 of 12
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.631 of 2019
2026:JHHC:32623-DB
along with fine of Rs.10,000/-(Rs. Ten Thousand) with default
stipulation.
Factual Matrix:-
3. Factual aspects of the case in a nutshell is that on 17.08.2013 at about
7:00 pm, the son of the informant, Gurucharan Munda aged about 15
years was standing on the road in front of his house, in the meantime,
the present appellant came out of his house and inflicted dawli blows on
the neck and left wrist of the informant’s son causing severe cut injuries
due to which, he fell down. It is further alleged that on seeing the
incident, the informant rushed towards the place of occurrence but the
accused managed to flee away. It is further submitted that the
informant’s son was writhing on the road and with the help of one
Jagmohan Munda (P.W.1), his son was brought to his courtyard but
subsequently died. The motive behind the occurrence is that a few days,
the appellant has forcibly taken away the bicycle of the informant from
his house, which was brought back from the house of the appellant due
to remorse, the informant’s son has been killed. It is further alleged that
the incident was reported on the following day of the occurrence due to
hilly and forest area.
4. On the basis of above fardbeyan of the informant, Kuchai P.S. Case
No.27 of 2013 was registered against the appellant for the offence under
section 302 of IPC.
Page 2 of 12
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.631 of 2019
2026:JHHC:32623-DB
5. The charge of investigation was assumed by S.I. Shital Ravidas
(P.W.6), who visited the place of occurrence and inspected the same as
well as prepared the inquest report of the deceased, interrogated with the
witnesses and sent the dead body for post-mortem.
6. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against
the appellant and he was sent up for trial. After taking cognizance, the
case was committed to the court of Sessions where S.T. No.76 of 2014
was registered.
7. The present appellant has denied the charges leveled against him and
claimed to be tried.
8. In course of trial, altogether 7 witnesses were examined by the
prosecution, namely:-
P.W.1 -Jagmohan Munda
P.W.2 -Sundra Munda
P.W.3 -Mahendra Munda
P.W.4 -Muneshwar Munda
P.W.5- Guruwa Munda (informant)
P.W.6 -Shital Ravidas (I.O.)
P.W.7- Dr. B. Mardi
9. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, following documentary
evidences have been adduced by the prosecution i.e.,
Ext.1 -Signature of P.W.1 Jagmohan Munda on Inquest
report
Ext.1/1 -Signature of P.W.5 Guruwa Munda (informant) on
inquest report
Ext.1/2 -Inquest report of deceased
Page 3 of 12
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.631 of 2019
2026:JHHC:32623-DB
Ext.2 -Signature of P.W.5 Guruwa Munda (informant) on
fardbeyan
Ext.2/1 -Fardbeyan
Ext.2/2 -Endorsement on fardbeyan
Ext.3- Formal FIR
Ext.4 -Carbon copy of Post-mortem report.
10. On the other hand, the case of defence is denial from the occurrence and
false implication. However, no oral or documentary evidence has been
adduced by the defence.
11. Learned trial court, after evaluating the evidence available on record
arrived at definite conclusion that the prosecution, has proved the
charge leveled against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt for the
offence under section 302 of IPC and convicted and sentenced him as
stated above, which has been assailed in this appeal.
Submission on behalf of appellant:-
12. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that although
P.W.5, Gurwa Munda (informant) claimed to be eye-witness to the
occurrence but his testimony in overall clearly suggests that he arrived
at the place of occurrence after assault was over and his son was lying
injured on the earth. Therefore, he is not an eyewitness of the
occurrence and he has also not seen the appellant while assaulting his
son. It is further submitted that no other witnesses of the facts examined
by the prosecution have claimed to see the appellant by assaulting the
deceased and fleeing away from the occurrence along with dawli . No
blood stained dawli was recovered and seized from the possession of the
Page 4 of 12
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.631 of 2019
2026:JHHC:32623-DB
appellant or from the place of occurrence. The investigating Officer has
also not collected bloodstained soil from the spot and blood stained
clothes of the deceased. It is further submitted that merely on the ground
of some injuries caused by sharp cut weapon, which has been sustained
by the deceased as mentioned in the post-mortem report, cannot itself be
a factor to be taken against the appellant. Learned trial court has
conjectured about existing enmity between the parties due to taking
away the bicycle from the house of the appellant, which has also not
been corroborated in the evidence of the informant during trial. Learned
trial court has miserably failed to properly appreciate the evidence
available on record and arrived at wrong conclusion about the guilt of
the appellant, which is liable to be set aside and this appeal may be
allowed.
Submission on behalf of State:-
13. On the other hand, learned P.P. controverting the aforesaid points of
argument raised on behalf of the appellant has submitted that there is
direct evidence of the informant(P.W.5) as an eye-witness of the
occurrence. Another witness, namely, Jagmohan Munda (P.W.1) has
also approached at the place of occurrence immediately and brought the
informant’s son to the courtyard with the help of the informant and saw
the injuries on the person of deceased. It is further submitted that the
ocular testimony of the witnesses cannot be disbelieved by any stretch
of imagination, and nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination
Page 5 of 12
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.631 of 2019
2026:JHHC:32623-DB
of these witnesses to discredit their testimony or cast doubt upon the
veracity. The manner of injuries caused to the son of the informant as
deposed by him also found corroboration from post-mortem report of
the deceased. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the
impugned judgment calling for interference in this appeal, which is
devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed.
14. We have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned
judgment and order in the light of the contentions raised on behalf of
both side.
15. The only point for determination in this appeal is that “ as to whether
the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the
appellant passed by learned trial court suffers from any error of
law calling for any interference in this appeal? ”
Analysis, Reasons and Decision:-
16. Before adjudicating the above point, it is necessary to take brief resume
of
oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution
to substantiate the charge leveled against the appellant.
P.W.1-Jammohan Munda is a witness of the inquest report
and proved his signature as Ext.1. He states that about 3 ½ years ago at
about 7:00 pm, Gopinath Munda assaulted by dabia to Gurucharan
Munda and fled away. He along with father of the injured, namely,
Guruwa Munda lifted him and brought to the courtyard where he died.
Page 6 of 12
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.631 of 2019
2026:JHHC:32623-DB
From the trend of his cross-examination, at the time of
occurrence, this witness was inside the house and just after hearing
hulla , came out and reached at the place of occurrence within ten
minutes. At that time, there was a crowd of people and he saw the son
of the informant was lying on earth under pool of blood sustaining
injuries. He further admits that his house is situated at the distance of 50
yards from the place of occurrence. This witness has denied the
suggestion of defence that the bicycle of Gopinath Manda(accused) was
forcibly taken away by the Guruwa Munda and Gurucharn Munda,
which was protested by him due to this inimical terms, the accused has
been falsely been implicated in this case and he has given false
evidence.
P.W.2-Sundra Munda stated that about 3 ½ years ago in the
evening, the appellant Gopinath Munda has committed murder of the
informant’s son, Gurucharan Munda.
In his cross-examination, he fairly admits that at the time of
occurrence, he was in the field situated at a distance of 2 kms from the
place of occurrence. He returned at about 7:00 pm, then saw the crowd
of people near the house of Guruwa Munda and went there and saw the
dead body of informant’s son, Gurucharan Munda.
P.W.3-Mahendra Munda states that about 3 ½ years ago,
Gopinath Munda inflicted dawli blows to Gurucharan Munda due to
which he died.
Page 7 of 12
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.631 of 2019
2026:JHHC:32623-DB
In his cross-examination, he admits that his house is situated
just adjacent to the place of occurrence after 2-3 houses. He admits that
while he was giving fodder to the cattle, he heard hulla , then rushed
towards the place of occurrence and found Gurucharan Munda lying
unconscious under pool of blood. Thereafter, he was brought to his own
courtyard.
P.W.4-Muneshwar Munda has also stated that the
occurrence is of 17.08.2013 at about 7:00 pm after hearing hulla , he
reached there and saw that Gurucharan Munda was writhing under
injured condition sustaining injuries. He also saw Gopinath Munda
fleeing away from his house bearing a dawli in his hand. Thereafter
Gurucharan Munda was brought to his own courtyard but after
sometime, he died.
In his cross-examination, he admits that his house is situated
at the distance of 200 meters from the place of occurrence. He also
admits that from the place of occurrence, his house is about 200 meters
and the house of Guruwa Munda is just adjacent to his house. He also
admits that Guruwa Munda attempted to catch hold of the accused but
he fled away. The aforesaid testimony of this witness has not been
rebutted to the extent that he saw the deceased in injured condition and
the accused was fleeing away with dawli .
P.W.5-Guruwa Munda is the informant-cum-father of the
deceased. This witness has also consistently corroborated the earliest
Page 8 of 12
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.631 of 2019
2026:JHHC:32623-DB
version of his fardbeyan . At the time of occurrence, he was inside in his
courtyard but just after hearing hulla from the outside, he rushed and
saw that Gopinath Munda was fleeing away with a dawli after inflicting
dawli blows to his son, who was lying on earth under pool of blood and
writhing. This witness brought his son with the help of other villager in
the courtyard where his son died. Next day morning, the police arrived
at the place of occurrence and his fardbeyan was recorded and he
proved his signature as Ext.2. The inquest report of the deceased was
also prepared by the police and signed by him marked as Ext.1/1.
In his cross-examination, he admits that he heard the sound
of Mahendra Munda and Sundra Munda then immediately came out of
his courtyard. Nothing has been elicited in his cross-examination to
rebut his aforesaid testimony. He has denied the suggestion of defence
that he along with his son, Gurucharan Munda forcibly brought the
bicycle of the accused from his house, which was protested by him.
Hence, he has falsely been implicated the accused in this case.
P.W.6 Shital Ravidas is the Investigating Officer of this
case. This witness has proved the fardbeyan of the informant as Ext.2/1,
endorsement on fardbeyan as Ext.2/2, formal FIR as Ext.3 and inquest
report of the deceased as Ext.1/2. According to his evidence, first S/D
Entry No.276 was made in the Station Diary, thereafter, at about 6:30
am, he arrived at the village Champat, Tolla-Potolor at the house of
Guruwa Munda situated near PCC road and in the courtyard of the
Page 9 of 12
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.631 of 2019
2026:JHHC:32623-DB
informant, the dead body of the informant’s son was lying on a cot
where several villagers were present. He noticed sharp-cut injury on
right side of neck and left hand wrist and huge quantity of blood was
found near the dead body. He recorded the restatement of the informant.
The occurrence took place at the PCC road situated just in front of the
house of the informant. After conclusion of investigation, he submitted
charge-sheet.
In his cross-examination, this witness admits that he has not
seized dawli used in this case. He has also not seized bloodstained soil
from the place of occurrence nor seized wearing clothes of the deceased.
He arrested the accused, who was assaulted by the local villagers after
the occurrence. He further admits that the main reason for the
occurrence was forcibly bringing the bicycle from the house of the
accused by the informant party, which was theft by the accused.
P.W.7-Dr. B. Mardi has conducted post-mortem on the
body of the deceased, Gurucharan Munda and found following:-
(i) A sharp cutting injury, situated at the upper neck
transversely directed. All the soft tissues of the neck were cut
at the same level and having the same depth up to the back
bone (cervical vertebra) size 7” x 2” and ½”.
(ii) Sharp cut injury on right hand at the wrist level. Both
radio ulna were cut and were attached only by the skin.
Cause of injury:-Heavy and sharp cutting weapon.
The cause of death :-Hemorrhage and shock due to above
mentioned injury.
Page 10 of 12
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.631 of 2019
2026:JHHC:32623-DB
Time since death within 12 hours from the time of post-
mortem examination.
He has proved the post-mortem report as Ext.4.
17. From the aforesaid discussion of prosecution evidence, it is crystal clear
that the enmity as depicted in the FIR by the informant has also been
admitted by the accused by suggesting the prosecution witnesses the
same motive for occurrence. P.W.5-Gurwa Munda (informant), the
father of the deceased has categorically stated that after hearing hulla ,
he came out from the courtyard and saw his son was writhing under the
pool of blood sustaining dawli injury and the accused was fleeing away
with dawli and also attempted to chase but could not succeed. This
version of the informant also finds corroboration from the evidence of
P.W.4-Muneshwar Munda. This part of testimony of the ocular
witnesses has not been rebutted by the defence and no such
contradiction has been got explained from their earliest version before
the police. Therefore, the plea of the appellant that there is no eye-
witness of the occurrence becomes nugatory and baseless. The manner
of injuries sustained by the deceased as depicted by the ocular testimony
of witnesses also finds corroboration from the evidence of the doctor
P.W.7, who has clearly opined that the injuries caused by heavy sharp-
cutting object/weapon like dabia . The accused in his statement under
section 313 of Cr.P.C. has simply pleaded his innocence and false
Page 11 of 12
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.631 of 2019
2026:JHHC:32623-DB
implication and no reasonable explanation has been offered against
incriminating circumstances appearing against him.
18. In view of the above discussion and reasons, we do not find any reason
to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and
sentence of the appellant, which has been proved by the prosecution
beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, we find no merits in this appeal
and this appeal stands dismissed .
19. The appellant is in custody. Let a copy of this judgment be furnished
forthwith to the appellant through learned P.P.
20. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly.
21. Let a copy of this judgment be sent back to the court concerned for
information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Per Ananda Sen, J. : I agree
(Ananda Sen, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated:-06 /11 /2026
Pappu /-N.A.F.R.
Uploaded on 06/11 /2026
Page 12 of 12
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.631 of 2019