(R) 1. Kishore Manjhi, S/o Late Chandan Manjhi, R/o Village- Korna Tarn, P.S. Giridih v. The State of Bihar
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:36854-DB ) [Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 23.02.1999 (sentence passed on 24.02.1999) passed by Shri Vinod Kumar Sinha, learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 137/1996] Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 86 of 1999 (R) 1. Kishore Manjhi, S/o Late Chandan Manjhi, R/o Village- Korna Tarn, P.S. Giridih (M), District- Giridih. 2. Ghanshyam Kolh, S/o Shri Shyamlal Kolh, R/o Village- Dhutki Tarn, P.S. Giridih (M), District- Giridih … … Appellants Versus The State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) … … Respondent Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 217 of 2008 With 1. Kartik Kolh, S/o Bangtha Kolh 2. Bhatu Kolh, S/o Bangtha Kolh Both R/o Village- Dudhakitand, P.S.- Giridih (M), District- … … Appellants Giridih Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent For the Appellants For the State ……….. : Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha, Adv. : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN C.A.V. on 12/06/2024 ……….. Pronounced on 01/12/2025 Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. Since both these appeals arise out of a common
Decision
judgment they are being disposed of by this common order. 3. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 23.02.1999 (sentence passed on 24.02.1999) passed by Shri Vinod Kumar Sinha, learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 137/1996, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable u/s 302/149, 147, 148 of the IPC and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life u/s 302/149 of the IPC and R.I for 01 year separately for the offences u/s 147 and 148 of the IPC. All the sentences were directed to run Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:36854-DB ) concurrently. 4. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Laxman Pandit recorded on 08.08.1995, in which, it has been stated that on the same day at 6:00 A.M., he had gone to plough the field along with Mathura Pandit, Kartik Pandit, Chandramohan Pandit, Baldeo Pandit and Basudeo Pandit when at about 7:00 A.M. several persons laced with firearms, arrow etc. came running from Kornatanr Jungle. The informant had hid himself while the rest five persons who were with him started fleeing away towards their houses. The informant had identified the aggressors as Meghu Kolh, Jagdish Kolh, Parmeshwar Kolh, Arjun Kolh, Sukra Manjhi, Rasik Manjhi, Patiya Manjhi, Madho Kolh, Mangra Manjhi, Kartik Kolh, Ghanshyam Kolh and other unknown persons. The aggressors had come on the beckoning of Meghu Kolh and his family members. It has been alleged that all the persons started committing assault upon the persons who were fleeing away. After committing the assault, the assailants had fled away towards the jungle. All the five persons died on account of the brutal assault. The reason for the occurrence is land dispute. Based on the aforesaid allegations Giridih (M) P.S. Case No. 187/1995 was instituted u/s 147, 148, 149/302 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as Sessions Trial No. 137/1996. Charge was framed against the accused u/s 147, 148 and 302/149 of the IPC which was read over and explained to them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution has examined as many as twenty- four witnesses in support of its case. 6. P.W.1 (Dineshwar Pandit), P.W.2 (Ram Chandra Pandit), P.W.3 (Lootan Pandit), P.W.4 (Sanichar Pandit), P.W.5 (Sona Pandit) and P.W.6 (Narayan Pandit) did not support the case Page 2 of 10 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:36854-DB ) of the prosecution and were declared hostile by the prosecution. 7. P.W.7 (Bhikhni Devi) has stated that it was 7:00 A.M. and her husband, brother-in-law and others had gone to plough their fields. She had gone to fetch water when she had heard a commotion. She had identified Meghu Kolh, Jagdish Kolh, Parmeshwar Kolh and Madho Kolh but she had not identified the rest of the accused. The accused persons had assaulted and committed the murder of her husband and others which included her son and brothers-in-law. She had not identified any of the persons in the Dock. 8. P.W.8 (Savitri Devi) has stated that on 7:00 A.M. her husband, Kartik Pandit, Chandramohan, Mathura Pandit, Basudeo Pandit and Laxman Pandit had gone to plough the field. She on hearing the sound of firing had rushed to the place of occurrence where she had seen 5-6 persons in uniform and all had firearms in their hands. She had identified Arjun Kolh, Jagdish Kolh, Meghu Kolh, Parmeshwar Kolh, Bhanu Kolh, Kartik Kolh, Kishore Manjhi and Ghanshyam Kolh. All these persons had committed the murders of her husband and others and only Laxman Pandit managed to escape from the place of occurrence. In cross-examination, she has deposed that on hearing the commotion only she and her sister-in-law Sita Devi had come out from their house. She had seen the accused persons fleeing away and when she saw her husband lying on the ground, she became unconscious. There were 40-50 persons who were fleeing away and she could not identify them. She had seen the assailants fleeing away when they had covered a considerable distance. 9. P.W.9 (Sita Devi) has stated that at 7:00 A.M. her husband, son and others had gone to plough the field. She had rushed to the field on hearing the sound of firing when she had seen several persons in Police uniform. The accused persons had fired and committed assault with axe and arrow and she had Page 3 of 10 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:36854-DB ) identified Arjun Kolh, Jagdish Kolh, Parmeshwar Kolh, Meghu Kolh, Ghanshyam Kolh, Kishore Manjhi, Rasi Manjhi and Patia Manjhi. She had seen all these persons fleeing away. In cross-examination, she has deposed that the field is near to her house. When she had rushed to the place of occurrence the inmates of the house and the villagers had also rushed to the place of occurrence. She had seen the persons who had committed the assault fleeing away. When she had seen the assailants fleeing away and the dead bodies she had fallen down and she was becoming unconscious intermittently. She had identified in the Dock two of the persons who were fleeing away. 10. P.W.10 (Tetri Mossomat) has been declared hostile by the prosecution. 11. P.W.10A (Nepal Pandit) and P.W.11 (Ruplal Pandit) have been tendered by the prosecution. 12. P.W.12 (Ramu Pandit), P.W.13 (Surajdeo Pandit), P.W.14 (Dineshwar Pandit @ Dinu Pandit and P.W.15 (Bhuneshwar Pandit) have been declared hostile by the prosecution. 13. P.W.16 (Jugal Kishore Pandit) has stated that on 08.08.1995 he was preparing to go to the Court when he heard the sound of firing. When he rushed to the place of occurrence, he had seen five dead bodies lying and he had identified the dead bodies of Baldeo Pandit, Basudeo Pandit, Mathura Pandit, Chandramohan Pandit and Kartik Pandit. The Police had come and prepared inquest reports in which he had signed as a witness. He has proved his signature on the inquest reports which have been marked as Exhibits- 1 to 1/4. He has proved the inquest reports which have been marked as Exhibits- 2 to 2/4. 14. P.W.17 (Dr. Kaushlendra Kumar) was posted as a Medical Officer in Sadar Hospital, Giridih and on 08.08.1995 he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Mathura Pandit and had found the following: (i) Sharp cut 5 ½” x 3 ½” x 4½” x deep at the base Page 4 of 10 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:36854-DB ) of the neck at the right side extending from right sterno mastoid to left survical vertebrae with fracture of C5 and C6 vertebra which was severely cut as well as the soft tissues of the neck including blood vessel and nerves with blood clot. (ii) One penetrating arrow was present over left postal margin of the abdomen directing medially and on dissection the arrow track led medially and left lob of liver was penetrated. (iii) One penetrated arrow was present 2” above the right nipple directed medially and on further dissection middle of the easting was penetrating which led to the penetration of the right chamber of heart both chambers of the heart empty. (iv) One oblique penetrating arrow on the right side of the chest in anterior auxiliary line penetrating the right lower lob of the lungs. (v) One penetrating wound on the angle of right scapula 1½” x ½” x ½”. The cause of death was opined to be due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of Injury Nos. (i) to (iv). He has proved the postmortem report which has been marked as Exhibit-3. On the same day he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Kartik Pandit and had found the following: (i) Sharp cut over left side of the neck extending from the left angle of the mandible to the base of neck 4½” x 2½” x deep down to survical vertebra with oblique cut and there was deep cut to the soft tissues of the neck major blood vessels and severe; (ii) Sharp cut over scalp left side infra-clavicular region left side with falling out wards 3½” x 2½” x muscle deep with blood clots; (iii) Sharp cut over scalp left side 2½” x ½” x skin deep; (iv) Sharp cut 1” x ¾” x skin deep over chin; The cause of death has been opined to be due to shock and hemorrhage. The postmortem report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-3/1. The autopsy of Chandramohan Pandit was also Page 5 of 10 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:36854-DB ) conducted on the same day and it was found as follows: (i) One oval wound on the left side of the neck ½” x ¾” x cavity deep and on dissection the track led to right scapular region size 4 ½” x 3”. The track led through and through. The first injury was wound of entry and the second one was the wound of exit caused by firearm weapon within 4’ distance. (ii) There was lacerated wound over right elbow 3” x 2” x bone deep with fracture of the underline bone and tattooing at the margin caused by firearm within 4’ distance. The cause of death was opined to be due to shock and hemorrhage. The postmortem report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-3/2. On the same day he had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Baldeo Pandit and had found the following: (i) Sharp cut transversely placed extending from lob of the left ear to the mastoid of the left side to the mastoid of the right major cut of the major blood vessels; (ii) Sharp cut transversely placed in the neck upper heart near the angle of the medieval with cut of the major blood vessels and nerves; (iii) On the lower part of the back right side one penetrating injury ¾” x ¾” x ½”. Heart both chambers were empty. The cause of death has been opined to be due to shock and hemorrhage. The postmortem report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-3/3. He had also conducted autopsy on the dead body of Basudeo Pandit and it was found as follows: (i) (ii) Sharp cut over right side of chest lower part with protrusion of coils of intestine size 4” x 3” x abdominal cavity deep, right lob of liver was cut and right kidney was also cut. Stomach was empty. Traverse sharp cut in front of the neck 3” x 2” x 2½” between chin, and the external angle of the Page 6 of 10 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:36854-DB ) clavicle larynx and esophagus were cut through and through along with soft tissues major blood vessel and nerve of the neck; (iii) Sharp cut left infra-clavicular region transversely placed with falling outwards 3” x ½” x muscle deep. Heart- both chambers were found empty; (iv) Sharp cut over left palm hypothesis region 2” x 1½”; Sharp cut over right elbow 2½” x 1½” x bone deep. (v) The cause of death has been opined to be on account of shock and hemorrhage. The postmortem report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-3/4. 15. P.W.18 (Laxman Pandit) is the informant who has not supported the case of the prosecution and he was declared hostile by the prosecution. 16. P.W.19 (Akal Pandit) has also been declared hostile by the prosecution. 17. P.W.20 (Gokul Pandit) has proved his signature on the inquest reports which have been marked as Exhibits- 1/5, 1/6, 1/7, 1/8 and 1/9. 18. P.W.21 (Mohan Pandit), P.W.22 (Radhika Devi) and P.W.23 (Hemwati Kumari) have also been declared hostile by the prosecution. 19. P.W.24 (Prem Nath) was posted as an Officer In- charge of Giridih (M) P.S. On 08.08.1995, on an information received that five persons have been murdered in village Bardonga he had made a station diary entry and thereafter left for the place of occurrence along with other Police personnel to verify the said information. At 10:00 A.M., he had reached village Bardonga where the fardbeyan of Laxman Pandit was recorded. He has proved the fardbeyan which has been marked as Exhibit-4. He had taken over the investigation after which he had inspected the place of occurrence which is at a distance of 500-600 yards from village Bardonga. He had thereafter prepared the inquest report in presence of witnesses. After preparing the dead body challans he had sent the bodies to Sadar Hospital, Giridih for postmortem Page 7 of 10 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:36854-DB ) examination. He had recorded the statements of the witnesses and conducted raids to nab the accused persons. He has proved the signature of Bhoga Oroan in the formal FIR which has been marked as Exhibits- 1/6. On 10.08.1995, he had arrested some of the accused persons. On completion of investigation, he had submitted charge-sheet. In cross-examination, he has deposed that the disputed land is in the north from the place where the dead bodies were lying. He had not seized the blood-stained soil. Sita Devi in her statement had not taken the name of Kishore Manjhi. 20. The statements of the accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., in which, they have denied their complicity in the commission of the offence. 21. The defence has examined one witness in support of its case. 22. D.W.1 (Indrajeet Singh) is the Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat, Palgo. He knows Ghanshyam Kolh and Kishore Manjhi from before. Kishore Manjhi is a social worker. In cross-examination, he has deposed that Kishore Manjhi had taken efforts to eradicate bonded labour. 23. It has been submitted by Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants that a majority of the witnesses have been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.8 and P.W.9 though claimed themselves to be the eye-witnesses but their evidence is replete with contradictions and ambiguities. In fact, this case is of no evidence and the learned trial court has erroneously convicted the appellants. 24. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned A.P.P. for the State has submitted that admittedly there was a previous enmity between the Pandits and the Kolhs and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses clearly demarcates the role of the appellants in committing the murder of five persons. P.W.8 and P.W.9 have categorically stated about identifying the appellants and Page 8 of 10 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:36854-DB ) considering the fact that the distance between the house of P.W.8 and P.W.9 and the place of occurrence being only 600 yards no questions can be raised regarding the veracity of their evidence. 25. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the Trial Court Records. 26. The First Information Report was heralded by an act of extreme depravity which led to the brutal murder of five persons presumably on account of a land dispute. The appellants along with others were named as the persons who had executed such grotesque murders. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined 24 witnesses out of whom a majority of the witnesses have either turned hostile or have been tendered by the prosecution. P.W.8 and P.W.9 are the only witnesses of substance based on whose evidence the conviction of the appellants has been recorded. On a perusal of the evidence of P.W.8, it transpires that she had not been able to identify any of the assailants fleeing away. P.W.9 has claimed to have identified two of the persons in the Dock as the persons who were fleeing away but this appears to be a vague assertion as she has not specifically pointed out the persons she had identified. Moreover, the evidence of P.W.8 and P.W.9 seem to reveal that on seeing the dead bodies of their husbands and other relatives they became disoriented and ultimately lost their consciousness and being in such a state of mind any reliance on their evidence with respect to the involvement of the appellants would be a travesty of justice. The learned trial court has not properly appreciated the evidences of P.W.8 and P.W.9 and in fact had tried to stitch together certain circumstantial evidence including the purported land dispute while convicting the appellants. 27. Thus, on a consideration of the aforesaid facts and reasonings, we allow both these appeals and set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 23.02.1999 (sentence passed on 24.02.1999) passed by Shri Vinod Kumar Page 9 of 10 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:36854-DB ) Sinha, learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 137/1996. 28. Since the appellants are on bail they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. 29. Pending I.As, if any, stands closed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Dated, the 1st day of December, 2025. A. Sanga/- Uploaded on 11.02.2026 Page 10 of 10