MARDHU TUDU And ORS vs STATE OF JHARKHAND

2026:JHHC:32759


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 1321 of 2008

[ Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated
30.09.2008, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III,
(F.T.C.), Jamtara, in Sessions Case No. 111 of 2007
].

1. Mardhu Tudu, S/o Themka Tudu.
2. John Tudu, S/o Rusilal Tudu.
Both resident of Village – Barwn, P.S. –
Bindapathar, District - Jamtara.
… … Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent

…..
For the Appellants : Mr. Rajiv Lochan, Advocate.
Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.
…..
P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on 09.09.2026 Pronounced on 06.11.2026

1. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention here that
during pendency of this appeal, original appellant no.
2 Bijay Soren has died and the appeal on his behalf
was abated in terms of order dated 14.07.2026.
Surviving appellants are hereby re-numbered.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The instant Criminal Appeal is directed against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
30.09.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge-III, (F.T.C.) Jamtara in Sessions Case No. 111
of 2007, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have
been held guilty for the offence under Sections
1

2026:JHHC:32759


304/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for
six years.
FACTUAL MATRIX
4. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on
01.05.2007, in the evening, informant along with her
husband went to attend marriage ceremony of
daughter of Gurung Tudu at Village – Barwa. It is
alleged that at about 9:00 P.M., after completion of
marriage ceremony, informant along with her
husband was about to return home, but in the
meantime, son of Themka Tudu started quarrelling
with his father. The informant’s husband intervened
and forbade from quarrelling, but the accused
Mardhu Tudu, Bijay Soren and John Tudu caught
hold of the husband of the informant namely,
Indrasen Hembram and assaulted him with hand and
legs and thrashed on the ground. It is alleged that
when informant’s husband fell down then Mardhu
Tudu again assaulted him on chest and stomach by
his leg. Her husband became unconscious due to
above injuries. She requested to the persons, who
were present there to carry her husband to Hospital,
but no one was ready to help her husband for medical
treatment at Hospital. Anyhow the informant
managed a vehicle on 03.05.2007 at about 1’ O Clock
2

2026:JHHC:32759


and brought her husband at the clinic of Dr. Tapan
Sen Gupta, who declared her husband as dead.
5. On the basis of fardbeyan of informant namely, Miloni
Murmu, recorded by A.S.I. N.M. Jha of Fathehpur
O.P.on 03.05.2007 at about 14:45 hours, the FIR
being Nala (Bindapather) P.S. Case No. 46 of 2007
was registered against the accused persons for the
offence under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C.
6. The charge of investigation was assumed by Officer-
in-Charge, Bindapather Police Station, Sri Shiv
Shankar Triwari, who after completion of
investigation, submitted charge sheet against the
above accused persons for the offence under Sections
304 I.P.C. After taking cognizance of the offence, the
case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where
Sessions Case No. 111 of 2007 was registered and
charges were framed for the offence under Sections
304/34 of the I.P.C., to which, the accused persons
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
In course of trial, the prosecution has examined
7.
altogether 11 witnesses and also adduced following
documentary evidence:-
Exhibit-1 : Post-mortem Report.
Exhibit-2 : Formal F.I.R.
3

2026:JHHC:32759


Exhibit-3 : Fardbeyan
Exhibit-3/1 : Forwarding Report in the
Fardbeyan.
Exhibit-3/2 : Endorsement in the Fardbeyan.
8. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence
is adduced by the defence, but the defence has
pleaded denial from occurrence and false implication
as well as plea of innocence.
9. The learned trial court, after scrutinizing the evidence,
held the appellants guilty for the offence under
Sections 304/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced them, as
stated above, which has been assailed in this appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellants assailing the
10.
impugned judgment has submitted that the learned
trial court has miserably failed to properly appreciate
the evidence available on record. Most of the
witnesses have been turned hostile and not supported
the prosecution story. The testimony of informant-
cum-wife of the deceased, who happens to be sole eye-
witness of the occurrence, suffers from material
contradictions and discrepancies, as regards manner
of assault given by the appellants to the deceased. It
was sudden scuffle and no lethal weapon was used in
assaulting the deceased, rather he was assaulted by
legs and slaps and fists. Due to unavailability of
4

2026:JHHC:32759


proper treatment, the deceased died. It is further
submitted that the main cause of death of the
deceased was internal hemorrhage due to stomach
injury as is opined by the Dr. Bishwanath Chowdhary
(P.W.-5) caused by fists and legs on the stomach.
Other external injuries on face and nose were of
simple nature with blood clots and not responsible for
death of the deceased. The injury on stomach by legs
and feet is attributed against Mardhu Tudu alone and
rest of the appellant Bijay Soren and John Tudu have
caused only simple injuries. The manner of
occurrence also shows that it was not pre-meditated
assault or executed in a pre-planned manner.
Therefore, conviction with the aid of Section 34 of the
I.P.C. is not warranted in this case.
On the other hand, learned APP appearing for the
11.
State has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of
the appellants and defended the impugned judgment
and order on merits.
12. The only point for consideration of this appeal is as to
whether the impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence of appellants suffers from any error
of law, calling for any interference by way of this
appeal.
13. I have gone through the record the case along with
5

2026:JHHC:32759


impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence of the appellants in the light of contentions
raised on behalf of both side.
14. Before imparting my judgment, it would be apposite to
take brief resume of prosecution evidence.
15. It appears that altogether 11 witnesses have been
examined in this case, out of which P.W.-2 Sarbati
Murmu, P.W.-3 Swaraswati Marandi, P.W.-4
Haripada Tudu, P.W.-7 Debiswar Tudu, P.W.-8 Jatin
Tudu, P.W.-9 Gurung Tudu, P.W.-10 Prabhas Tudu
and P.W.-11 Kamal Tudu have been declared hostile
by the prosecution.
16. P.W.-1 Miloni Murmu . She is the informant-cum-wife
of the deceased and also the eye-witness of this case.
In her evidence, this witness has stated that on the
date of occurrence, she went to the house of Gurung
Tudu with her husband Indrasen Hembram on the
occasion of marriage of her daughter. When she was
ready to return back to her house with her husband,
in the meantime, Mardhu Tudu was quarrelling with
his father namely, Themka Tudu. Her husband
forbade to the Mardhu Tudu, but Mardhu Tudu did
not listen to him and the accused persons namely,
Mardhu Tudu, Bijay Soren and John Tudu threw the
deceased, who fell down and thereafter, they
6

2026:JHHC:32759


assaulted him by fists and legs. They also assaulted
her husband on his stomach by legs and hands.
Thereafter, her husband became senseless. This
witness has further stated that she requested to the
villagers to carry her husband to Doctor for his
treatment, but no any villagers helped her. Her
husband died in absence of treatment. She brought
her husband before his death to the Doctor Prabhakar
for treatment, but the Doctor declared him dead.
In her cross-examination, this witness has stated
that after incident, her husband stayed in the house
of Gurung Tudu and on the third day of incident, he
was taken to Fatehpur P.S. and at that time, her
husband was alive.
17. P.W.-5 Doctor Biswanath Chowdhary has conducted
autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Indrasen
Hembram, aged about 50 years and found following:-
External Appearance .
Average built, dark complexion, black scalp hair, eye
closed, mouth semi opened, exposing teeth,
abdominal distension, penis scrotal swelling.
Anti-mortem Injuries
Diffused swelling at left side of face just lateral to
nose. Clotted blood at left nostril. No other external
7

2026:JHHC:32759


injury.
On Dissection:-
Abdominal cavity was found to contain bloody fluid.
The stomach was raptured at greater courvature just
above the pyloric and ½” in length.
The small intestine was raptured near the jejunum,
size ¼” in length, skull-N.A.D., Brain – N.A.D., Chest
– No bone injury, Lung – Pale, Heart – All chambers
empty.
This witness has opined the cause of death was
due to shock and internal haemorrhage caused by
above mentioned injuries, which is caused by hard
and blunt substance. Time elapsed since death within
36 hours. Stomach injury may be raptured by feet
and legs on the stomach.
P.W.-6 Shivshankar Tiwary is the I.O. of this case.
18.
On 04.05.2007, he has assumed the charge of this
case and on the first day, he received the fardbeyan of
the informant, Miloni Murmu through the Fatehpur
O.P. and registered the case. This witness went to
Village – Barwa in course of investigation and again
recorded the statement of informant Miloni Murmu,
who fully supported the case of prosecution. This
witness also visited the place of occurrence with the

8

2026:JHHC:32759


informant, which is house of Gurung Tudu. This
witness has also took statement of other witnesses.
This witness has received inquest report of the
deceased Indrasen Hembram and made entry in the
case diary. This witness has identified the fardbeyan
in the pen and signature of S.I. Ram Charan Rai,
which has been marked Exhibit-2. This witness has
also identified the fardbeyan in the pen and signature
of A.S.I. N.N. Jha, which has been marked as Exhibit-
3. This witness has also identified the forwarding
report in his pen and endorsement in the pen and
signature of A.S.I. Ram Charan Rai, which has been
marked as Exhibit-3/1 and 3/2. This witness has also
stated that he took the statement of Sabrati Murmu,
who supported the occurrence. He also received the
post-mortem report of deceased Indrasen Hembram
and submitted charge sheet against the accused
persons.
19. From recapitulating the entire evidences available on
record, it appears that P.W.-2 Sarbati Murmu, P.W.-3
Swaraswati Marandi, P.W.-4 Haripada Tudu, P.W.-7
Debiswar Tudu, P.W.-8 Jatin Tudu, P.W.-9 Gurung
Tudu, P.W.-10 Prabhas Tudu and P.W.-11 Kamal
Tudu have been declared hostile. P.W.-1 (informant) is
the only eye-witness of this case. The testimony of the
9

2026:JHHC:32759


P.W.-1 is fully corroborated by the evidence of P.W.-5
Dr. Biswanath Chowdhary. There is no reason to
disbelieve the testimony of sole eye-witness. It is trite
that conviction can be based upon solitary testimony
of witness, if he is found wholly reliable. Law is settled
that in a case where the testimony of the solitary
witness inspires confidence and it is wholly reliable, it
can be the basis for passing a judgment of conviction
and sentence. From the evidences, it appears that the
main allegation of assault on deceased’s chest and
stomach is by Mardhu Tudu. Therefore, conviction of
the appellant-John Tudu with respect to Section
304/34 of I.P.C. cannot be sustained, as such set
aside. However, from the evidence and in the facts
and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered
view that the appellant- John Tudu is guilty for the
offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C.
20. So far quantum of sentence is concerned, it appears
that the appellant – John Tudu has remained in
custody for about four months, therefore, in my
considered view, imprisonment already undergone by
the appellant-John Tudu would meet the ends of
justice in this case, as he has sufficiently been
punished in the facts and circumstances of this case.

10

2026:JHHC:32759


Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of the
21.
appellant – John Tudu for the offence under Section
304/34 of the I.P.C. is set aside and he is convicted
and sentenced for offence under Section 323 of I.P.C.,
Appeal filed on behalf of John
as stated above.
Tudu is partly allowed.
22. The appellant – John Tudu is on bail. As such, he is
discharged from the liability of bail bonds and
sureties shall also discharged
23. So far conviction of appellant – Mardhu Tudu is
concerned, he has assaulted on deceased’s chest and
stomach by his leg when deceased fell down, although
it was not intentional, causing of death on the part of
appellant - Mardhu Tudu. Therefore, the conviction
and sentence of the appellant- Mardhu Tudu awarded
by the learned trial court is moderate and no
interference is required. Accordingly, the same is
upheld and the appeal filed on behalf of Mardhu
Tudu is dismissed .
24. Appellant – Mardhu Tudu is on bail. As such, his bail
bond is cancelled and he is directed to surrender
before the trial court within two months from the date
of this Judgment and undergo the remaining period of
sentence awarded to him by the learned trial Court,
failing which, the learned trial Court shall take all
11

2026:JHHC:32759


coercive steps for arrest and detention of the appellant
namely, Mardhu Tudu for sustaining the remaining
period of sentence awarded to him.
25. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of and pending
I.A., if any, stand also 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, Ranchi
th
Dated, the 6 November, 2026 .
Sunil /
N.A.F.R.
Uploaded On : 06/11/2026
12