Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Jhk) 2159

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, RAJESH KUMAR, JJ.
Satyendra Choubey - Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 190 of 1994 (R) With Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 114 of 2013, S.T. No. 32 of 1999), Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 483 of 2013
Decided On : 08-07-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. B.M. Tripathi, Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathy, Ms. Nazia Rashid, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Satish Prasad, APP

In cases of cross-complaints arising from the same incident, both cases should be tried together; insufficient evidence to ascertain guilt leads to acquittal on severe charges.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 374(2) - Indian Penal Code - Sections 302/34, 307/34, 323, 341, 452 - Two criminal appeals arising from a case and counter-case involving a family feud resulting in convictions for murder, culpable homicide, and lesser offences - Principle established that where two cross cases arise from the same incident, they should be tried together by the same judge for coherence in evidence and verdicts - Murder conviction overturned where the prosecution failed to establish that the deceased was killed by the firearm associated with the accused; acquittal for charges under Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 452 - Conviction upheld under Sections 323 IPC where witness testimony and injuries corroborated the assaults. (Paras 3, 10, 152, 154, 157)

Table of Content
1. criminal appeals linked by similar events (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 14)
2. judicial procedure for cross-cases in trial (Para 5 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. separate trials for intertwined cases necessary (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 24 , 26 , 34)
4. allegations and incidents leading to trial (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
5. burden of proof and standard of reasonable doubt in criminal trials (Para 82 , 91 , 100 , 118)
6. outcome of the appeal based on evaluation of evidence (Para 152 , 156 , 158)

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. These criminal appeals filed under section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C are linked together as these are arisen out of the same occurrence wherefrom case and counter-case were instituted by the parties against each other.

2. At the outset, it needs to mention here that one of the appellants, namely, Raj Kumar Choubey in Criminal Appeal No.190 of 1994 (R), had died during the pendency of the appeal and vide order dated 27.02.2023 Criminal Appeal No.190 of 1994 (R) qua the appellant, namely, Raj Kumar Choubey stands abated.

3. Criminal Appeal (DB) No.190 of 1994 is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence both dated 30.11.1994 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Palamu, Daltonganj in Sessions Trial No. 228 of 1991 whereby and whereunder the appellants, above-named, have been convicted under sections 452, 341, 307/34, 302/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under section 302/34 of the . They are further sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years each under section 307/34 . They are further sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years each for other offence under section 452 . The appellant, namely, Satyendra Choubey has also been convicted under section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years for the offence under section 27 of the Arms Act. All the sentences shall run concurrently.

4. Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos.114 of 2013 and 483 of 2013 are directed against the conviction dated 13.02.2013 and the order of sentence dated 19.02.2013 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-1^st, Garhwa in S.T. No. 32 of 1999 whereby and whereunder the appellants, above- named, have been convicted under sections 323 IPC . The convict- appellant, namely, Deo Kumar Chaubey in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 114 of 2013 has also been convicted under section 304(1) .

5. While convicting the appellants of the Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 483 of 2013, the learned trial Court has opined that since the appellants, namely, Sumant Kumar Chaubey and Rajendra Kumar Chaubey are first offenders as not previous conviction has been proved on record against them, as such, they have been granted benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act and they were directed to be released on furnishing a probation bond of Rs.5000/- with two sureties which will be for maintaining good conduct for two years.

6. While sentencing the sole appellant of the Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 114 of 2013, namely, Deo Kumar Chaubey the learned trial Court has awarded sentence to undergo RI for 10 years under section 304(1) of the Indian Penal Code with a fine of Rs.5,000/- under section 323 IPC and in default of payment of fine, he is directed to undergo SI for 1 month.

7. Before adverting to the merit of the instant appeal, it would be apt to refer herein that this Court is conscious with the settled position of law that the fair procedure to adopt in a matter like the present case where there are cross cases and in the such type of cases, the same learned Judge must try both the cross cases one after the another and after the recording of evidence in one case is completed, he must hear the arguments but he must reserve the judgment. Thereafter he must proceed to hear the cross case and after recording all the evidence he must hear the arguments but reserve the judgment in that case. The same learned Judge must thereafter dispose of the matters by two separate judgments. In deciding each of the cases, he can rely only on the evidence recorded in t