SUKHDEO THAKUR vs STATE OF JHARKHAND
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
2026:JHHC:32574-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1612 of 2003
[Against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
th
29.09.2003 passed by learned 9 Additional Sessions Judge,
Hazaribagh in in Sessions Trial No.444 of 1999]
Sukhdeo Thakur son of Sri Ashirbad Thakur resident of
village Uperbarga, Police Station-Gola, District-
… … Appellant
Hazaribagh.
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent
with
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1642 of 2003
-------
1.Pushu Thakur, son of Late Kokil Thakur
2.Naryaan Thakur, son of Shri Surendra Thakur
all resident of Uper Barga, PS Gawa, District-
Hazaribagh. … … Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent
P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR
…..
For the Appellants : Ms. Diksha Dwivedi, Advocate
[Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1612/03]
Mr. Avilash Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Siddhant Singh, Advocate
[Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1642/03]
For the Respondent : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P.
[Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1612/03]
Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, APP
[Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1642/03]
For the Informant : Ms. Supriya Dayal, Advocate
[In both cases]
…..
C.A.V. on 23/09/2026 Pronounced on 05_/11/2026
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.:
1. Since both the appeals arise out of the common
Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
th
29.09.2003 passed by learned 9 Additional Sessions
-1-
2026:JHHC:32574-DB
Judge, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No.444 of 1999, as
such they have been tagged together and taken up
together for analogous hearing and are being disposed of
by this common order.
2. It is pertinent to mention that appellant Golak
Thakur in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1642 of 2003 died
during the pendency of the instant appeal and, as such,
the appeal qua Golak Thakur was abated vide order dated
26.03.2026, by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
Prayer
3.
The instant appeals are directed against the
Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
th
29.09.2003 passed by learned 9 Additional Sessions
Judge, Hazaribagh in in Sessions Trial No.444 of 1999,
whereby and whereunder the all the appellants have been
found guilty and convicted for the offence punishment
under Sections 147/148/447 and 304/149 of the Indian
Penal Code whereas appellant Pushu Thakur has been
convicted under section 302/149 of IPC along with
147/148/447 of IPC. All the appellants were sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months under
Section 147 IPC; one year under Section 148 IPC; one
month under Section 447 IPC. Appellant Pushu Thakur
has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for
-2-
2026:JHHC:32574-DB
offence punishable under Section 302/149 of IPC with a
fine of Rs. 500/-each and in default of payment of fine, RI
for 3 months was imposed. Appellants Naryaan Thakur
and Sukhdeo Thakur were sentenced to 8 years for
offence under Section 304/149 IPC and fine of Rs.500/-
each and in default of payment of fine, rigorous
imprisonment for three months was imposed. However, all
the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
Prosecution Case:
4. Prosecution case, as per fardbeyan of informant
Laxman Thakur (PW-8), in short is that on 25.06.1998, in
the morning at about 9 am, the informant's elder brother
Gaur Thakur (deceased) was giving fodder to the cattle in
his granary. In the meantime, his pattidar [co-sharer],
Pusu Thakur and Sukhdeo Thakur armed with sabal
( Crowbar), Narayan Thakur armed with lathi and Rangtu
Thakur and Golak (since dead) came there. Rangatu
Thakur pulled the neck of the Gour Thakur [deceased]
abusing him as to why he had sowed paddy crops in field.
Golak Thakur instigated to murder the deceased, to which
Pusu Thakur, gave two-three sabal blows on the head of
the Gour Thakur [deceased] due to which he fell down on
the ground and then Sukhdeo Thakur gave two sabal
blows near the waist of Gour Thakur [deceased].
Thereafter, Rangtu Thakur gave 2-3 stick blows on the
-3-
2026:JHHC:32574-DB
back of Gour Thakur [deceased], upon which his brother
began to cry out and after few time, he became calm and
quiet. However, when the informant and others rushed
with lathi , the accused persons fled away.
5. The reason for assault has been assigned of previous
land dispute between the parties and in this connection a
panchayati was also held on 24.06.1998, in which it was
settled that the disputed land would be measured in the
month of ‘ Magh’ [December-January], till then the
informant party would cultivate the land. In pursuance to
the aforesaid settlement, the informant and informant’s
brother Gour Thakur [deceased] had sown the seed of
paddy over the 60 decimals of land at about 6 am and due
to this reason out of anger the accused persons had
murdered his elder brother.
6. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan of informant
Gola P.S. Case No.52 of 1998 dated 25.06.1998, was
registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 447 IPC
against the appellants.
7. After investigation police filed charge-sheet against
the accused persons/appellants and cognizance of the
offences was taken and the case was committed to the
court of Sessions.
8. Accordingly, charges were framed against the
accused persons/appellants under Section 302,147,
-4-
2026:JHHC:32574-DB
148,149 and 447 of IPC which was read over and
explained to accused persons to which they pleaded not
guilty and claimed trial.
9. The prosecution has altogether examined nine
witnesses out of whom P.W.-8 Laxman Thakur, is the
informant of the case and brother of the deceased; P.W.-1
Sidam Thakuar and P.W.-2 Panchanand Thakur, are the
sons of the deceased; P.W.-3 Kinker Thakur, is the
nephew of the deceased; P.W.-4 is Sudhir Thakur; P.W.-5
Dasrath Thakur, was declared hostile; P.W.-6 Haripad
Mahto; P.W.-7 Jyotilal Thakur, has also been declared
hostile and P.W.-9 Nidhish Sharan, is the Medical Officer.
10. Three Court Witnesses have been examined- C.W.-1
Harinarayan, is the formal witness, who had proved the
formal FIR; C.W.-2 Devendra Prasad, is the second
Investigating Officer of the case and C.W. 3-Jyoti Prakash
is also the Investigating Officer of the case.
11. The learned trial court, on appreciation of the
evidences produced on behalf of the prosecution and
defence, found the allegation proved against the
appellants and accordingly, passed the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence as referred
herein above, which is under challenge in the present
appeals.
Argument on behalf of appellants
-5-
2026:JHHC:32574-DB
12. Learned counsel for the appellants have taken the
following grounds, in assailing the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence, as under: -
I. The prosecution has miserably failed to establish
the charge said to be proved, beyond all reasonable
doubt, in establishing the charge said to be
committed by the appellants.
II. Submission has been made that in the case at hand
though some independent witnesses have been
examined but none of them have supported the case
of the prosecution and the witnesses who have
supported the case of the prosecution are highly
interested witnesses.
III. Further submission has been made that P.W. 2 and
P.W. 8 are claimed to be eye witness to the
occurrence, but both have made inconsistent and
contrary statement with respect to assault being
made by the accused persons.
IV. Submission has been made that statement of the
informant, P.W 8, as has been made in the FIR is
also different to what he deposed before the Court in
his examination-in-chief.
V. Even the medical evidence is inconsistent to the
ocular evidence since as per the
statement/testimony of the informant, the deceased
-6-
2026:JHHC:32574-DB
had sustained 15-20 fatal injuries but as per the
post mortem report, only 2 injuries were found over
the dead body of the deceased.
VI. Submission has been made that the informant in
unequivocal term has stated in the FIR that the
appellant assaulted the deceased near the waist
whereas the doctor, who conducted postmortem over
the dead body of the deceased, has not found any
injury on or near the waist of the deceased, as such
the statement of the eye witness [P.W8] itself falsifies
the allegation against the appellant.
VII. Learned counsel for the appellant has further
submitted that from the FIR and testimonies of the
witnesses, it is evident that the deceased was
providing bichali to his cattle and in the meantime,
the accused persons came armed with sabal and
lathi and assaulted the deceased due to which he
received several injuries and died but the
investigating officer [CW 3] has stated that the place
of occurrence was examined but no blood and
bichali
was found at the place of occurrence, as such there
is grave doubt on the prosecution case.
VIII. In defense, taking aid of testimony of independent
witness, submission has been made that while the
deceased was climbing up machan in order to take
-7-
2026:JHHC:32574-DB
bichali from machan , he fell down and sustained
injuries and died. P.W. 5 has supported the factum
of falling of the deceased as also P.W. 6 has stated
that Laxman Thakur told him that while the
deceased was taking straw from the Machan he fell
down and died, as also P.W. 7 has supported this
version. But the learned trial court did not consider
the version of these independent witnesses as also
the ground of previous enmity, which is admitted
one, and passed the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence.
IX. The learned counsel for the appellants, based upon
the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the
impugned judgment suffers from illegality, hence not
sustainable in the eyes of law.
Argument on behalf of the State
13. While on the other hand, learned State counsel,
defending the impugned judgment of conviction has raised
the following arguments in response to the grounds taken
by learned counsel for the appellants, as referred
hereinabove: -
I. There is no error in the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence since culpable homicide is there
and admittedly all the witnesses have deposed about
the assault given by appellants, which ultimately
-8-
2026:JHHC:32574-DB
resulted into death of the deceased, which finds
support from the medical evidence.
II. Further submission has been made that from the
testimony of the informant, who is the eye witness of
the case, time place and manner of occurrence is
established which is further corroborated by the
testimony of other witnesses.
III. In this case motive is also established that since
there was previous enmity between the parties due
to land dispute, as such they committed murder.
IV. So far, the discrepancies, as pointed out by the
appellants, are concerned they are minor in nature
and in any way are not affecting the case of the
prosecution.
14. Learned counsel appearing for the State based upon
the aforesaid premise has submitted that the impugned
judgment does not suffer from any error hence, the
instant appeal is fit to be dismissed.
Analysis
15. We have heard learned counsel for the parties,
perused the documents available on record as also the
finding recorded by the learned trial in the impugned
judgment as also gone through the testimonies of the
witnesses as available in the Trial Court record as also the
exhibits.
-9-
2026:JHHC:32574-DB
16. This Court, before appreciating the argument
advanced on behalf of the parties as also the legality and
propriety of the impugned judgment, deems it fit and
proper to refer the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses.
Testimony of witnesses:
17. P.W. 8-Laxman Thakur , is the informant in this
case and brother of Gour Thakur [deceased]. He has
stated in his evidence that occurrence took place on
25.06.98 at 9.00 am, when the deceased Gour Thakur
was giving fodder to the cattles (bullock) in his granary. In
the meantime, Pusu Thakur, Sukhdeo Thakur, Narayan
Thakur, Rangtu Thakur and Golak Thakur came armed
with sabal and lathi and murdered him. The deceased had
sustained injuries on his head and other part of body.
Accused Pusu, Sukhdeo and Naryan had assaulted Gour
Thakur by crowbar [sabal], on his head. Naryan and
Rangtu had assaulted by lathi , Golak had instigated to kill
Gour, saying that they will face the consequences.
18. He further stated that he tried to rescue, then the
accused persons attacked him. In the meantime,
Panchanan Thakur; Ekar Thakuir; Sudhir Thakur and
Sidam Thakur came there, whereupon the accused
persons fled away. The cause of incidence was previous
land dispute.
-10-
2026:JHHC:32574-DB
19. In cross-examination, he has stated that Panchanan,
Sidam, Inkar, and Sudhir are all members of his family.
Dashrath, Surendra, Jyoti, and Budu are all from
defendant’s family. Informant further stated that they
went to the field at 6:15 am and they stayed there for a
total of two hours, Gaur was also there for that time. They
all returned home at 8:30 am. At the time of the incident,
he had gone out to wash his hands after eating. Gaur
Thakur lived in a separate house from him. When he was
at home, he didn't hear any commotion. There were
women in their house, Inkar Thakur, and Ranjit Thakur.
When he went outside, he saw accused persons were
surrounding and beating Gaur Thakur and this assault
lasted for 5-10 minutes. When he raised an alarm, all the
boys came to the barn . No one from the village came at
that time. After 15-20 minutes, the villagers came to see
what had happened, to whom he told them. Gaur Thakur
was beaten countless times. He was beaten all over his
body. There were wounds at about 15-20 places but there
was no bleeding from anywhere. Blood spilled on the
ground. He arrived at the police station at 12 noon with
Haripad, Jaleshwar, and others. He gave his statement to
the police there. The police did not take their signatures at
the police station.
-11-
2026:JHHC:32574-DB
20. P.W. 1-Sidam Thakur , is the son of the deceased.
He had deposed that on the date of incidence at 9 am in
the morning, his father was feeding straw to the bulls in
the barn. In the meantime, Pusu Thakur, Sukhdev
Thakur, Narayan Thakur, Rengdu Thakur and Golak
Thakur came and assaulted his father, injuring him,
resulting in his death at the same spot. He has further
deposed that the accused persons belong to their clan
[Gotiya]. A land dispute case was already ongoing with
them before this incident and due to this reason accused
persons had murdered his father.
21. In his cross-examination, he stated that his
statement was taken by the police three days after the
incident. He further deposed that a land dispute with
their gotiya was ongoing for approximately 10-12 years.
The dispute was over a share of the land. There has been
no division of the land. At the time of the incident, he, his
father, his uncle Laxman Thakur, his cousin Sikandar
Thakur, and his brother Panchanan Thakur were present
at the scene. The villagers have barns on the adjacent
land, but there were no people in those barns.
22. P.W. 2 Panchanand Thakur, another son of the
deceased. He had stated in his evidence that the incident
occurred on June 25, 1998, at 9 a.m., when his father
was feeding the bullocks. In the meantime, Kusu Thakur,
-12-
2026:JHHC:32574-DB
Sukhdev Thakur, Narayan Thakur, Golak Thakur and
Rangtu Thakur arrived and murdered his father. His
father was also facing a case under Section 307 of the
IPC, with the accused persons, which was related to a
land dispute. He had signed on the fardbeyan, which was
identified and his signature on the fardbeyan was marked
as Ext.-1.
23. In cross-examination, PW-2 stated that they went to
the Gola police station and reported the incident. The
station is 19 km from their village. They gave a statement
to the police about the incident. They gave their statement
verbally, which the inspector wrote down. The inspector
took this statement at 3:30 p.m. He told the police that he
was present at the scene of the incident and deposed that
at the time of the incident, he, his uncle Laxman, his
brother Kinkar, Haripad, and others were present. Pusu
Thakur hit his father with two sticks on the head,
Sukhdev Thakur hit him with two sticks around the waist.
Narayan Thakur hit him on the back with a stick. Regtu
Thakur was pulling his neck and abusing him. Galak
Thakur was ordering to kill the bastard and also hit him
with a stick. The accused were already at the spot. They
beat him indiscriminately for five minutes and killed him.
They started shouting, they were going to save him but
the accused persons threatened to kill them. On hearing
-13-
2026:JHHC:32574-DB
the shout Tandalu, Yogeshwar, Tandalu, Kameshwar,
Haripad, Jyoti Thakur etc., from the village came. There
was no blood spilled at the scene.
24. P.W. 3-Kinker Thakur, is the nephew of the
deceased. He had stated in his examination-in-chief that
the incident occurred on June 25, 1998, at 9 am. Gaur
Thakur was slaying a bull in the joint barn. Then, Pusu
Thakur, Sukhdev Thakur, Narayan Thakur, Regtu Thakur
and Golak Thakur entered the barn and began assaulting
his uncle Gaur Thakur. Pusu and Sukhdev Thakur
assaulted him with sabal , injuring his forehead. Sukhdev
Thakur assaulted Gaur Thakur with sabal on his waist.
Reku Thakur was dragging him pressing his neck,
Narayan Thakur assaulted him with a stick and Golak
Thakur was exhorting to kill him. PW-3 further stated
that Gaur Thakur, died at the place of occurrence.
25. In his cross-examination, he stated that many years
ago, Dashrath Thakur had filed a case of assault against
him. Pusu Thakur is Dashrath's own uncle. At the time of
the incident, he was in the barn. Gaur's and his barn are
joint. He has partition of land and house with Gaur. There
was straw in the barn. The straw heap was kept on the
western side of the barn. The incident occurred adjacent
to the straw on the western side. Before the incident, he,
Panchanan, Laxman, and Haripad and Sudhir were with
-14-
2026:JHHC:32574-DB
Gaur Thakur and they all of them were sitting in the barn.
They had been there since 8.30 am. The accused entered
the barn from the west and he had seen the accused
persons approaching from a distance of 10-15 feet.
Accused persons came and surrounded Gaur Thakur and
began assaulting him. The fight lasted for about 2-3
minutes and thereafter, after assaulting accused fled away
and then, many villagers arrived at the scene. There was
no wound on Gaur's forehead. He had seen two bleeding
wounds on Gaur's forehead. There was slight blood on the
cloth and the ground. He had not seen any other bleeding
wound on Gaur's body. He had told the police that Pusu
and Sukhdev Thakur had assaulted Gaur Thakur, with
sabal on his head and injuring him, Sukhdev assaulting
him with sabal on waist and Narayan Thakur had
assaulted with a stick and Golak Thakur was exhorting to
kill.
26. P.W. 4.-Sudhir Thakur, is also the nephew of the
deceased. He had stated in his evidence that incident
occurred on June 25, 1998 and he was at home. He came
to know that accused Sukhdev Thakur, Kusu Thakur,
Narayan Thakur, Regtu Thakur and Golak Thakur had
beaten Gaur Thakur to death with a stick. There was a
property dispute between the two parties. He gave a
statement to the police. Gauri Thakur had injuries on his
-15-
2026:JHHC:32574-DB
head and waist. He saw Gauri Thakur dead in the barn.
That barn belonged to Gauri Thakur and him.
27. In his cross-examination, he stated that before this
incident, a case was filed by Dashrath Thakur and
Surendra Thakur against his father and Gaur Thakur etc.
He didn't immediately go to the barn after hearing the
noise. He came to know about the incident at 10 o'clock.
The incident occurred at 9 o'clock and he went to the barn
at 10 o'clock.
28. P.W. 6-Haripado Mahto , has stated in his evidence
that he does not know about the incident. Gaur Thakur
was murdered four years ago. The accused in this case
are Pushu Thakur, Narayan Thakur, Golak Thakur, and
Sukhdev Thakur and all of them are his villagers. He does
not know the cause of Gaur Thakur's death.
29. In cross-examination, he has stated that Laxman
Thakur had told that Gaur Thakur had climbed the
scaffolding to give straw to the cow and had fallen from
the scaffolding and died.
30. P.W. 9 Dr. Nidhish Saran, has stated that on 26
June 1998, he was posted at Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh
as CAS and on that day, he did post mortem examination
over the dead body of Gaurh Thakur aged about 66 years.
He found - both eyes closed, mouth partially open, blood
pinched discharge from the left nostril and undigested
-16-
2026:JHHC:32574-DB
food particles from the mouth. Rigor mortis present in
both upper and lower limbs.
Injury: Black bruise with underlying haematoma over
right side of back extending from lower costal margin up
to lumbosacral region about 18" x 18" in size.
2. Black bruise over occipital region about 3" x 1" in size
with depressed fractured under lying bone. Subdural
haematoma with laceration of brain matter.
3. Hyoid bone intact both lungs intact pale. Heart- right
chamber empty, left-blood clots. Liver, spleen, kidneys
intact pale. Stomach undigested food particles about two
ounce. Urinary bladder- empty.
He has opined that the cause of death was
hemorrhage and shock produced by head and extensive
injury over the body.
Time elapsed since death- within 36 hours.
The report was made in the carbon process with original
in the same process by me. It was marked Ext. 2.
31. Three court witnesses have also been examined.
32. C.W.-1 Heernarayan, is an advocate clerk and a
formal witness. He has stated that the fardbeyan is in the
handwriting and signature of Sub-Inspector Jyoti Prakash
and he recognize it and, on his identification, fardbeyan
was marked as Ext.-3. He further deposed that formal FIR
was also in his handwriting and it was marked as Ext.-4.
-17-
2026:JHHC:32574-DB
The carbon copy of the inquest report, the original of
which is also in the handwriting and signature of Sub-
Inspector Jyoti Prakash and inquest report was marked as
Ext.-5.
33. C.W.-2 Devendra Prasad , is the second
investigating officer of the case. He further deposed had
stated that he assumed charge of this case from Sub-
Inspector Jyoti Prakash, on 1 July 1998. Sub-Inspector
Jyoti Prakash conducted the investigation up to
paragraph 16. He recorded the statements of witnesses
Sudhir Thakur, Kinkar Thakur, Panchanan Thakur, Jyoti
Lal Thakur, Dashrath Thakur, Rajan Mandal, and Lakhan
Thakur. The place of occurrence of the incident, as
recorded by the previous investigator in paragraph 4 of
the case diary is Laxman Thakur's barn, located in the
village of Uparvarga, on the western edge of which the
deceased's body was found. Jyoti Prakash's signature on
this formal FIR, as Station House Officer, was previously
marked as Ext.-4. The fardbeyan, in the handwriting and
signature of Sub-Inspector Jyoti Prakash, was previously
marked as marked as Ext.-3. The carbon copy of the
inquest report, also in the handwriting and signature of
Sub-Inspector Jyoti Prakash, and it was previously
marked as Ext.-5.
-18-
2026:JHHC:32574-DB
34. C.W.-3 Jyoti Prakash is the investigating officer of
the case. He has stated that on 25.06.1998, he was
posted and working as a Sub-Inspector at the Gola Police
Station. On 25.06.98, at 13:30 hrs., a rumoured report of
a murder was received and to verify the information, he
along with ASI Riyazuddin Khan, Fayaz Khan and other
armed forces, proceeded to verify and take necessary
action. He entered FIR No. 532 in the formal FIR and
based on this, he set out for verification. He reached
Laxman Thakur's house, where he found Laxman Thakur
at the door and recorded his statement there.
35. He deposed that he had written the fardbeyan which
is in his handwriting and signature, which was previously
as Ext.-3, is marked as Ext.-3/1. The formal FIR is in his
handwriting and signature and it has already been
marked as Exhibit-4. The carbon copy of the inquest
report, the original of which bears his handwriting and
signature, has already been marked Ext.-5. He inspected
the place of occurrence in the presence of witnesses
Laxman Thakur, Yogeshwar Thanedar and Haripad
Mahato. The place of occurrence is in Uparvarga. Laxman
Thakur's barn is located here and in the said baran, the
deceased's body was found on the western side of this
barn.
-19-
2026:JHHC:32574-DB
36. In his cross-examination he stated that he found no
blood at the scene. The blood was on head of deceased. He
did not even find straw at the scene of the incident.
Haripada Mahato did not state about the weapons held by
the accused persons.
37. This Court, on the basis of aforesaid factual aspect
vis-à-vis argument advanced on behalf of parties, is now
proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence
by formulating following questions to be answered by this
Court:
I. Whether the testimony of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3
and P.W.8 (informant), claimed to be
eyewitnesses to the occurrence, are trustworthy
and reliable witnesses, to sustain the conviction
of the appellants?
II. Whether the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by the learned Trial Court
against the appellants suffer from any illegality,
and infirmity warranting interference by this
Court?
38. Since, both these issue issues are inextricably
interlinked, the same are being discussed and decided
hereinbelow together.
39.
The learned trial court had convicted the appellants
relying on the testimony of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-8
(informant). Learned Trial Court found that PW-1, PW-2,
-20-
2026:JHHC:32574-DB
PW-3 and PW-8 were the eye witnesses to the occurrence of
murder of Gour Thakur (deceased), which was supported
by the inquest report and the medical evidence of the
Doctor (PW-9). Learned trial court had also found that land
dispute between the parties was the motive behind the
commission of crime.
40. Learned Counsel appearing for the informant
submitted that murder of Gour Thakur was committed by
the accused persons/appellants due to land dispute. The
murder of the dispute is proved from the ocular evidence of
PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-8 and motive behind the
occurrence is proved from Ext.-A, B, C and Ext.-3.
41. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the
appellants have submitted that PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-
8 are claimed to be eye witness to the occurrence but there
are vital discrepancies and contradiction in the testimony
of these prosecution witnesses.
42. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to
certain judicial authorities concerning the evidentiary
value of discrepancies and contradictions in the testimony
of witnesses.
43. The law in this regard is well settled by Hon’ble Apex
Court in case of Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa ,
(2002) 8 SCC 381 and Bhargavan v. State of Kerala ,
(2004) 12 SCC 414 , wherein it has been laid down that
-21-
2026:JHHC:32574-DB
material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and
not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the
category to which a discrepancy may be categorized. While
normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a
party's case, material discrepancies do so. Paragraph-15 of
judgment of Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa ,
(supra), is quoted herein below-
“15.To the same effect is the decision in State of Punjab v. Jagir
Singh [(1974) 3 SCC 277 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 886 : AIR 1973 SC
2407] and Lehna v. State of Haryana [(2002) 3 SCC 76 : 2002
SCC (Cri) 526] . Stress was laid by the accused-appellants on the
non-acceptance of evidence tendered by some witnesses to
contend about desirability to throw out the entire prosecution
case. In essence prayer is to apply the principle of “falsus in uno,
falsus in omnibus” (false in one thing, false in everything). This
plea is clearly untenable. Even if a major portion of the evidence is
found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of
an accused, notwithstanding acquittal of a number of other co-
accused persons, his conviction can be maintained. It is the duty
of the court to separate the grain from the chaff. Where chaff can
be separated from the grain, it would be open to the court to
convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has
been found to be deficient to prove guilt of other accused persons.
Falsity of a particular material witness or material particular
would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim “falsus in
uno, falsus in omnibus” has no application in India and the
witnesses cannot be branded as liars. The maxim “falsus in uno,
falsus in omnibus” has not received general acceptance nor has
this maxim come to occupy the status of rule of law. It is merely a
rule of caution. All that it amounts to, is that in such cases
testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be
disregarded. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight
of evidence which a court may apply in a given set of
circumstances, but it is not what may be called “a mandatory rule
of evidence”. (See Nisar Ali v. State of U.P. [AIR 1957 SC 366 :
1957 Cri LJ 550] ) Merely because some of the accused persons
have been acquitted, though evidence against all of them, so far
-22-
2026:JHHC:32574-DB
as direct testimony went, was the same does not lead as a
necessary corollary that those who have been convicted must also
be acquitted. It is always open to a court to differentiate the
accused who had been acquitted from those who were convicted.
(See Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1956 SC 460 : 1956
Cri LJ 827] ). The doctrine is a dangerous one specially in India for
if a whole body of the testimony were to be rejected, because a
witness was evidently speaking an untruth in some aspect, it is to
be feared that administration of criminal justice would come to a
dead stop. Witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery to a
story, however, true in the main. Therefore, it has to be appraised
in each case as to what extent the evidence is worthy of
acceptance, and merely because in some respects the court
considers the same to be insufficient for placing reliance on the
testimony of a witness, it does not necessarily follow as a matter
of law that it must be disregarded in all respects as well. The
evidence has to be sifted with care. The aforesaid dictum is not a
sound rule for the reason that one hardly comes across a witness
whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate
exaggeration, embroideries or embellishment. (See Sohrab v. State
of M.P. [(1972) 3 SCC 751 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 819] and Ugar
Ahir v. State of Bihar [AIR 1965 SC 277 : (1965) 1 Cri LJ 256] .) An
attempt has to be made to, as noted above, in terms of felicitous
metaphor, separate the grain from the chaff, truth from falsehood.
Where it is not feasible to separate the truth from falsehood,
because grain and chaff are inextricably mixed up, and in the
process of separation an absolutely new case has to be
reconstructed by divorcing essential details presented by the
prosecution completely from the context and the background
against which they are made, the only available course to be
made is to discard the evidence in toto. (See Zwinglee
Ariel v. State of M.P. [(1952) 2 SCC 560 : AIR 1954 SC 15 : 1954
Cri LJ 230] and Balaka Singh v. State of Punjab [(1975) 4 SCC
511 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 601 : AIR 1975 SC 1962] .) As observed by
this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki [(1981) 2 SCC 752 : 1981
SCC (Cri) 593 : AIR 1981 SC 1390] normal discrepancies in
evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation,
normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental
disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and
those are always there however honest and truthful a witness
may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal,
and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the
-23-
2026:JHHC:32574-DB
category to which a discrepancy may be categorized. While
normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's
case, material discrepancies do so. These aspects were
highlighted recently in Krishna Mochi v. State of Bihar [(2002) 6
SCC 81 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1220 : JT (2002) 4 SC 186] . Accusations
have been clearly established against the accused-appellants in
the case at hand. The courts below have categorically indicated
the distinguishing features in evidence so far as the acquitted and
the convicted accused are concerned.”
(emphasis supplied)
44. Again, in case of Mohd. Jabbar Ali v. State of
Assam , (2023) 19 SCC 672 , Hon’ble Apex court reiterated
the same, as to discrepancy of witnesses and laid down
that material discrepancies corrode the credibility of the
prosecution's case while insignificant discrepancies do not
do so. Paragraph-53 of the judgment is quoted herein
below-
“53. Further as already stated above, all the witnesses
have given contradictory versions as to who gave the
fatal blow to deceased Ekkabar Ali and the same
amounts to material contradictions. It is reiterated that
the testimony of PW 6 is inconsistent with the
testimonies of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 5. This Court in State
of Rajasthan v. Kalki [State of Rajasthan v. Kalki, (1981)
2 SCC 752 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 593] , distinguished between
the normal discrepancies and material discrepancies.
This Court held that the Courts have to label as to which
category a discrepancy can be categorised. The material
discrepancies corrode the credibility of the prosecution's
case while insignificant discrepancies do not do so.”
(emphasis suppled)
45. Hence, in view of the aforesaid proposition of law
concerning discrepancies in the testimony of material
-24-
2026:JHHC:32574-DB
witnesses, this Court now proceeds to examine the
evidence of the witnesses.
46. Firstly, this Court has examined the testimony of the
informant Laxman Thakur (PW-8), who is the brother of the
deceased Gour Thakur. In his deposition, PW-8 stated that
the accused persons/appellants had assaulted Gour
Thakur with a sabal and lathi . He further deposed that
when he attempted to rescue the deceased, the accused
persons/appellants also attacked him. However, this
material fact regarding the alleged assault upon PW-8 by
the accused persons/appellants does not find mention in
his fardbeyan. The omission of such a vital circumstance
from the earliest version of the prosecution case assumes
significance while assessing the credibility and reliability of
his testimony.
47. Further, this Court has also carefully examined the
fardbeyan of the informant. Although the informant has
given a detailed account of the alleged assault upon the
deceased, a close reading of his initial statement reveals
that he did not categorically state that he was present at
the place of occurrence at the time of the assault or that he
had witnessed the accused persons assaulting the
deceased with a sabal and lathi . Rather, the informant
stated in the fardbeyan that upon hearing the halla raised
by his brother (the deceased), he and others rushed to the
-25-
2026:JHHC:32574-DB
place of occurrence. This statement prima facie suggests
that the informant reached the place of occurrence only
after hearing the alarm and was not present when the
assault commenced. If that be so, a serious question arises
as to how the informant could claim to have witnessed the
entire occurrence in the manner subsequently described by
him.
48. This apparent inconsistency between the version
disclosed in the fardbeyan and the testimony of the
informant assumes significance and casts a doubt on the
reliability of his claim of being an eyewitness to the
occurrence.
49. Further, Sidam Thakur (PW-1), Panchanand Thakur
(PW-2) and Kinker Thakur (PW-3) have also been projected
as eye-witnesses to the occurrence. These witnesses have
specifically deposed that they were present at the place of
occurrence and had witnessed the assault upon the
deceased Gour Thakur. However, the presence of Sidam
Thakur (PW-1), Panchanand Thakur (PW-2) and Kinker
Thakur (PW-3) at the place of occurrence was not disclosed
by the informant Laxman Thakur (PW-8), in his fardbeyan.
Significantly, for the first time in his examination-in-chief,
Informant (PW-8) stated that when he attempted to rescue
the deceased, the accused persons/appellants assaulted
him, whereupon Panchanand Thakur (PW-2), Kinker
-26-
2026:JHHC:32574-DB
Thakur (PW-3), Sudhir Thakur and Sidam Thakur (PW-1)
came out of their houses and proceeded towards the place
of occurrence. Thus, neither the presence of these alleged
eye witnesses nor their witnessing of the occurrence finds
mention in the earliest version of the prosecution case as
contained in the fardbeyan.
50. Further, in his cross-examination, Kinker Thakur
(PW-3), who is the nephew of the deceased, stated that
prior to the occurrence he, along with Panchanand Thakur
(PW-2), Laxman Thakur (PW-8), Haripad Mahto (PW-6) and
Sudhir Thakur (PW-4), were accompanying Gour Thakur
(deceased). However, the informant Laxman Thakur (PW-8),
in his cross-examination, deposed that upon witnessing the
assault, he raised a halla (alarm), whereupon boys and
other persons arrived at the place of occurrence.
51. Thus, according to the testimony of the informant
(PW-8), he first witnessed the assault on Gour Thakur
(deceased) and only thereafter did other persons assemble
at the place of occurrence. This version is wholly
inconsistent with the deposition of Kinker Thakur (PW-3),
who categorically stated that he, along with Panchanand
Thakur (PW-2), Laxman Thakur (PW-8), Haripad Mahto
(PW-6) and Sudhir Thakur (PW-4), was already
accompanying the deceased before the alleged assault took
place.
-27-
2026:JHHC:32574-DB
52. This material contradiction goes to the root of the
prosecution case. If the witnesses named by PW-3 were
already present with the deceased before the occurrence,
the statement of the informant that other persons arrived
only after he raised an alarm becomes inherently doubtful.
Such inconsistency creates a serious dent in the
prosecution version and casts substantial doubt on the
credibility, reliability and trustworthiness of both PW-3 and
PW-8, thereby rendering their evidence unsafe to be relied
upon without independent corroboration.
53. Again, Sidam Thakur (PW-1), in his cross-
examination, categorically deposed that blood had fallen at
the place of occurrence and that the same was shown to
the Daroga Je during the investigation. However, the
informant Laxman Thakur (PW-8), in his cross-
examination, stated that no blood had fallen on the
ground. This constitutes another material inter-se
contradiction in the prosecution evidence.
54. Further, Kinker Thakur (PW-3), in his cross-
examination, deposed that he had noticed two injuries on
the head of the deceased and that blood was oozing from
those injuries. However, the informant Laxman Thakur
(PW-8), contrary to the testimony of PW-3, stated in his
cross-examination that no blood had come out from any
-28-
2026:JHHC:32574-DB
part of the body of the deceased. This constitutes a
material contradiction in the evidence of PW-3 and PW-8.
55. Again, Kinker Thakur (PW-3), who has been
projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness to the
occurrence, deposed in his cross-examination that he had
seen two injuries on the head of the deceased from which
blood was oozing out. However, the post-mortem report
proved by the Doctor (PW-9) shows that only one injury
was present on the head of the deceased. This discrepancy
goes to the root of the prosecution case. The testimony of
PW-3, being inconsistent with the medical evidence, loses
much of its evidentiary value. It is well settled that where
the ocular testimony is in direct conflict with the medical
evidence on a material aspect, the Court must scrutinize
such testimony with greater caution. Therefore, the
statement of PW-3 regarding the injuries found on the
deceased creates a serious dent in the prosecution version
and renders his presence at the place of occurrence
doubtful.
56. Hence, from the foregoing discussions, this Court is
of the considered view that there are several contradictions
inter-se in the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and the
informant (PW-8). The contradictions noticed are not minor
discrepancies rather, they are material contradictions
touching upon vital aspects of the prosecution case,
-29-
2026:JHHC:32574-DB
including the presence of witnesses at the place of
occurrence, the existence of blood at the scene, and the
nature and extent of injuries sustained by the deceased.
57. These inconsistencies render the prosecution version
doubtful and create serious uncertainty regarding the
truthfulness and reliability of the witnesses. The evidence
of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-8, when read as a whole,
does not present a consistent and coherent account of the
occurrence. Consequently, the material contradictions
appearing in their testimonies substantially impair their
credibility and raise a reasonable doubt with respect to the
prosecution case.
58. Hence, upon an overall assessment of the testimony
of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-8 (informant), coupled with
the material contradictions, inconsistencies and omissions
noticed in their evidence, this Court is constrained to hold
that the prosecution has failed to establish a trustworthy
and coherent version of the occurrence. The evidence
adduced by the prosecution does not furnish a sufficiently
reliable, cogent and complete foundation for sustaining the
conviction of the appellants.
59. In absence of credible and unimpeachable evidence
connecting the appellants with the alleged offence, it would
be unsafe to uphold their conviction merely on the basis of
such doubtful testimony.
-30-
2026:JHHC:32574-DB
60. It is a fundamental principle of criminal
jurisprudence that the prosecution must establish the guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The burden
remains upon the prosecution throughout the trial, and the
accused is entitled to the benefit of a reasonable doubt
arising from the evidence on record.
61. It needs to refer herein that the Hon'ble Apex Court
in catena of decision has propounded the proposition that
in the criminal trial, there cannot be any conviction if the
charge is not being proved beyond all reasonable doubts,
as has been held in the case of Rang Bahadur Singh &
Ors. Vrs. State of U.P., reported in (2000) 3 SCC 454,
wherein, at paragraph-22, it has been held as under:-
"22. The amount of doubt which the Court would
entertain regarding the complicity of the appellants in
this case is much more than the level of reasonable
doubt. We are aware that acquitting the accused in a
case of this nature is not a matter of satisfaction for all
concerned. At the same time we remind ourselves of
the time-tested rule that acquittal of a guilty person
should be preferred to conviction of an innocent person.
Unless the prosecution establishes the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt a conviction cannot
be passed on the accused. A criminal court cannot
afford to deprive liberty of the appellants, lifelong
liberty, without having at least a reasonable level of
certainty that the appellants were the real culprits. We
really entertain doubt about the involvement of the
appellants in the crime."
-31-
2026:JHHC:32574-DB
62. Likewise, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Krishnegowda & Ors. Vrs. State of Karnataka, 2017
(13) SCC 98, has held at paragraph-26 as under:
"26. Having gone through the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses and the findings recorded by
the High Court we feel that the High Court has failed to
understand the fact that the guilt of the accused has to
be proved beyond reasonable doubt and this is a
classic case where at each and every stage of the trial,
there were lapses on the part of the investigating
agency and the evidence of the witnesses is not
trustworthy which can never be a basis for conviction.
The basic principle of criminal jurisprudence is that the
accused is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is
proved beyond reasonable doubt."
63. Further, it needs to refer herein the principle of
'benefit of doubt' belongs exclusively to criminal
jurisprudence. The pristine doctrine of 'benefit of doubt'
can be invoked when there is reasonable doubt
regarding the guilt of the accused, reference in this
regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana
Vrs. Bhagirath & Ors., reported in (1999) 5 SCC 96,
wherein, it has been held at paragraph-7 as under:
" 7. The High Court had failed to consider the
implication of the evidence of the two eyewitnesses on
the complicity of Bhagirath particularly when the High
Court found their evidence reliable. The benefit of
doubt was given to Bhagirath "as a matter of abundant
caution". Unfortunately, the High Court did not point
out the area where there is such a doubt. Any restraint
-32-
2026:JHHC:32574-DB
by way of abundant caution need not be entangled
with the concept of the benefit of doubt. Abundant
caution is always desirable in all spheres of human
activity. But the principle of benefit of doubt belongs
exclusively to criminal jurisprudence. The pristine
doctrine of benefit of doubt can be invoked when there
is reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused.
It is the reasonable doubt which a conscientious
judicial mind entertains on a conspectus of the entire
evidence that the accused might not have committed
the offence, which affords the benefit to the accused at
the end of the criminal trial. Benefit of doubt is not a
legal dosage to be administered at every segment of
the evidence, but an advantage to be afforded to the
accused at the final end after consideration of the
entire evidence, if the Judge conscientiously and
reasonably entertains doubt regarding the guilt of the
accused."
64. It needs to refer herein that the Hon'ble Apex Court,
in the case of Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of
Gujarat reported in (2002) 3 SCC 57 has laid down
the principle that the golden thread which runs through
the web of administration of justice in criminal case is
that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in
the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the
other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to
the accused should be adopted, for ready reference,
paragraph 6 thereof requires to be referred herein which
reads hereunder as :-
“6. ------The golden thread which runs through the
web of administration of justice in criminal case is
that if two views are possible on the evidence
-33-
2026:JHHC:32574-DB
adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the
accused and the other to his innocence, the view
which is favourable to the accused should be
adopted. —"
65. It needs to refer herein before laying down the
aforesaid view, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 has already laid down the
same view at paragraph 163 which is required to be
referred which read hereunder as-
“163. We then pass on to another important point
which seems to have been completely missed by the
High Court. It is well settled that where on the
evidence two possibilities are available or open, one
which goes in favour of the prosecution and the other
which benefits an accused, the accused is
undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt.---"
66. Thus, on the basis of discussion made hereinabove,
material contradictions and inconsistencies are noticeable
in the testimonies of the alleged eye-witnesses. While the
prosecution case in the fardbeyan attributes specific overt
acts to each accused/appellants, the witnesses have given
varying versions regarding the nature of assault, the
weapons used and the injuries inflicted upon the deceased.
P.W.-8 in his cross-examination stated that the deceased
had sustained injuries at about 15-20 places on the body
and that the assault was indiscriminate. However, the
post-mortem report reveals only two external injuries. Such
-34-
2026:JHHC:32574-DB
a material discrepancy strikes at the root of the
prosecution case.
67. Another circumstance which renders the prosecution
case doubtful is the evidence of the Investigating Officer
(C.W.-3). He has categorically stated that during inspection
of the place of occurrence he did not find any blood at the
spot. He further admitted that no straw (bichali) was found
at the alleged place of occurrence. This assumes
significance because the consistent prosecution case is that
the deceased was feeding straw to cattle in the barn when
the assault took place. Had the occurrence taken place in
the manner alleged, the presence of straw and signs of
blood at the spot would have been natural. The absence
thereof creates doubt regarding the prosecution story and
the place of occurrence itself.
68. This Court further notices that independent
witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. P.W.-5
was declared hostile, while P.W.-6 and P.W.-7 did not
support the prosecution version of murderous assault,
rather evidence has come on record through these
witnesses that the deceased had fallen from a machan
while taking straw and sustained injuries. Although such
defence version may not be required to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt, it nevertheless constitutes a
-35-
2026:JHHC:32574-DB
circumstance which probabilizes the defence case and
further weakens the prosecution evidence.
69. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence as
discussed in the preceding paragraphs that suspicion,
however strong, cannot take the place of proof. The
prosecution is required to establish its case beyond all
reasonable doubt and the benefit of every reasonable doubt
must necessarily enure to the accused.
70. In the present case, the inconsistencies between the
ocular and medical evidence, non-support by independent
witnesses, absence of blood and straw at the place of
occurrence, admitted previous enmity and the alternative
version emerging from the defence evidence cumulatively
create serious doubt regarding the prosecution case.
71. This Court, after having discussed the factual aspect
and legal position as discussed hereinabove is of the view
that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against
the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt as such the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence
requires interference by this Court.
72. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence both dated 29.09.2003 passed by
learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in
-36-
2026:JHHC:32574-DB
Sessions Trial No.444 of 1999, against the appellants
cannot sustain and are hereby, set aside.
73. Accordingly, the both the appeals stand allowed.
74. The appellants Sukhdeo Thakur, Pushu Thakur and
Naryan Thakur, who are on bail, are discharged from the
liabilities of his bail bonds.
75. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the
Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this
Judgment.
76. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands
disposed of.
I Agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Akhil Kumar, J.) (Akhil Kumar, J.)
05/11/2026
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Alankar / A.F.R.
Uploaded on 06.11.2026
-37-