Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Lakhiram Murmu, S/o Late Matal Murmu - Appellants
Vs.
The State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 293 of 1998 (R)
Decided On : 08-04-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302/34 - Conviction and sentence for murder - Appellants convicted for life imprisonment based on eyewitness accounts and postmortem report - However, contradictions in eyewitness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence led to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 2, 15, 16)
(B) Burden of Proof - The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and any reasonable doubt must lead to acquittal. (Paras 15)
Facts of the case:
The case arose from an incident on 12.04.1989 where the father of the informant was assaulted over a dispute regarding a cut tree, resulting in his death. Eyewitnesses claimed to have seen the assault, but their testimonies were inconsistent. (Paras 3, 15)
Findings of Court:
The court found significant contradictions in the testimonies of the eyewitnesses and noted that the evidence did not conclusively establish the guilt of the appellants. (Paras 15, 16)
Issues: The main issues included the credibility of eyewitness accounts and whether the prosecution met its burden of proof. (Paras 15)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the prosecution's failure to provide consistent and corroborative evidence warranted the reversal of the conviction, highlighting the principle that guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 15, 16)
Result: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside.
JUDGMENT :
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.
Heard Mr. M.B. Lal, learned counsel for the appellants and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl. P.P. for the State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 07.09.1998 (sentence passed on 11.09.1998) passed by Sri Raj Narain Prasad Singh, learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 287 of 1989, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 302/34 of the IPC and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life.
3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Vinod Murmu, in which, it has been stated that on 12.04.1989 at about 11:00 A.M. the father of the informant namely, Chunku Murmu had cut a Bair tree in his kitchen garden and as he was trying to take it to his house Lakhiram Murmu and Sukhlal Murmu came and Lakhiram Murmu claiming that the tree belonged to him wanted to take it away with the help of Sukhlal Murmu. When the father of the informant objected Lakhiram got enraged and started assaulting him with a lathi and Sukhlal Murmu also assaulted him with a lathi. It has been alleged that in course of such assault Lakhiram snatched the tangi from the father of the informant and gave him a tangi blow on the back of his head as a result of which he fell down unconscious. Both the accused thereafter fled away. The incident of assault was witnessed by Rasik Murmu, Nimai Murmu and the mother of the informant.
Based on the aforesaid allegations Govindpur P.S. Case No. 76/1989 was instituted u/s 302 of the IPC. 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. 287 of 1989. Charge was framed against the accused u/s 302/34 of the IPC which was read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses in support of its case.
5. P.W.1 (Sukarmani Manjhian) is the wife of the deceased who has stated that about three years back at around 11:00 A.M. her husband had gone to the kitchen garden to cut a tree. After cutting the tree he was bringing it home when Lakhiram Murmu and Sukhlal Murmu stopped him by saying that the cut tree belongs to them. When her husband replied that if the villagers decide they can take the tree, the accused persons retorted by giving lathi blows upon her husband. She has stated that her husband had a tangi which was snatched by Lakhiram Murmu who gave a blow on the head of her husband who died due to such assault. The Police had recorded her statement.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that she was in the courtyard of her house when the accused persons had come and committed assault upon her husband. When her husband had fallen down unconscious due to lathi blow he was struck with a tangi on head 4-5 times. When she raised an alarm, nobody had come. After committing the assault, the accused persons had fled away. Her son Vinod Murmu and nephew Nimai Murmu had put her husband in a cot. The Police had only seized the blood-stained earth and not the tangi and the tree.
6. P.W.2 (Nimai Murmu) has stated that Chunku Murmu had cut a bair tree in his kitchen garden but Sukhlal Murmu and Lakhiram Murmu had prevented him from taking away the tree and both had assaulted Chunku Murmu with lathis. Lakhiram Murmu had snatched the tangi from the possession of Chunku Murmu and assaulted Chunku Murmu with the tangi on his head. He has stated that the Police had recorded his statement.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that on hearing the cry of alarm he went to the place of occurrence and found Chunku Murmu in an injured condition with blood oozing out from his head. There were no other persons present. He had called the wife and son of Chunku Murmu while disclosing that Chunku Murmu has died.
7. P.W.3 (Vinod Murmu) is the informant and son of the deceased
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in eyewitness testimonies led to the reversal of conviction.
The court emphasized that contradictions in eyewitness testimonies undermine the prosecution's case, necessitating the reversal of convictions due to insufficient evidence.
The conviction for murder based solely on a solitary eyewitness's testimony was overturned due to contradictions and lack of corroboration from other witnesses.
The court upheld the conviction for murder based on overwhelming eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, emphasizing that the absence of motive does not negate guilt.
Eyewitness testimony must be credible and reliable; an unconscious witness cannot provide valid evidence against an accused.
Eyewitness testimony in rural settings is reliable, and the absence of motive does not undermine the conviction for murder under Section 302/34 IPC.
The court ruled that reliance on a solitary eyewitness was misplaced due to inconsistencies, leading to the conclusion that the conviction was not supported by reliable evidence.
The prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt in the murder case due to inconsistent eyewitness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence.
A conviction for murder requires reliable and corroborated evidence, particularly when based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness; contradictions and lack of corroboration can lead to the reversal o....
Unreliable eyewitness testimony cannot support a conviction, leading to the reversal of a murder conviction based on insufficient evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
