Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ.
Chanda Kharia, son of Late Amus Kharia – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar (now of Jharkhand) – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.31 of 1998(R)
Decided On : 12-03-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. murder prosecution case amid land dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. appellants allege false implication and contradictions. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 3. state relies on eyewitness and medical corroboration. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 4. court scrutinizes prosecution witness testimonies. (Para 14 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. conviction valid on reliable sole eyewitness. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 6. eyewitness corroborated by others and post-mortem. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 7. minor discrepancies do not discredit eyewitness. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51) |
| 8. io non-examination not fatal to case. (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58) |
| 9. undisputed post-mortem admissible without doctor. (Para 59 , 60 , 61 , 62) |
| 10. appeal dismissed; sentence upheld. (Para 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68) |
Judgment :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant appeal, has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment of conviction dated 15.01.1998 and order of sentence dated 16.01.1998 passed by learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Gumla, in Sessions Trial No. 506 of 1987 whereby and whereunder the present appellants had been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, as per the fardbeyan dated 20.01.1986, of the informant Khudi Singh (P.W.-1), recorded by the Officer-in-Charge, Raidih Police Station, is that land dispute was continuing between the informant and Amus Kharia (father of the appellants herein). Informant further stated that land dispute was pending in the Palkot Circle office and on 20.01.1986 at about 8 A.M., in the morning, informant along with his father Dilbodh Singh(deceased), aged about 65 years, were going to catch the bus, to attend the case at Palkot Circle office. As soon as they reached near Marda River, informant sat down to defecate and the informant’s father marched ahead.
3. Informant further stated that after defecation, when he moved 100 yards ahead, on the way to Darka Patra forest, he saw accused/ appellants Chanda Kharia and Dukhan Kharia both sons of Amus Kharia, armed with khukhri and lathi respectively were assaulting his father Dilbodh Singh. On seeing this informant ran away towards his village raising halla and on the way he met Chandra Nath Singh (P.W.-3) and Duryodhan Singh (P.W.-2) and told them about the occurrence and then reached his house and informed to this brother Mohan Singh about the occurrence. Thereafter, they returned to the place of occurrence and saw his father was killed and from the place of occurrence, his body was dragged and thrown in a ditch, which is east to the way. There was mark of injury on head, neck, back and leg of his father.
4. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, FIR being Raidih P.S. Case No. 03/1986 dated 20.01.1986 was instituted for the offences under section 302/201 of the I.P.C against both the appellants. After completion of investigation of the said case, charge-sheet had been submitted and the cognizance of the offences were taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
5. The charge was framed against the appellants under 302/34 of IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. In course of trial, the prosecution had examined altogether 5 witnesses out of whom P.W.1-Khudi Singh is the informant of the case and the son of Dilbodh Singh(deceased); P.W.-2 Duryodhan Singh; P.W.-3 Chandra Nath Singh; P.W-4 Gulab Chandra Sahu and P.W.-5 Birnath Pandit.
7. The statement of the appellants was recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedural Code, in which they denied from the prosecution evidence and claimed himself to be innocent.
8. The trial Court, after recording the evidence of witnesses, examination-in-chief and cross-examination, found the charges levelled against
Conviction under IPC 302/34 upheld on reliable sole eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical evidence and witnesses, despite minor discrepancies and non-examination of investigating officer/docto....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the testimony of witnesses, even if related to the deceased, should not be automatically discarded, and minor discrepancies in the evidence sh....
Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC unsustainable on uncorroborated, contradictory testimony of interested sole eyewitness; benefit of reasonable doubt mandates acquittal where prosecution fails to p....
Conviction on sole eyewitness unreliable due to contradictions in assault manner/place, house layout inconsistency, suspicious family conduct; benefit of doubt where guilt not proved beyond reasonabl....
The conviction based on the testimony of a sole injured eyewitness is valid if the testimony is credible and minor discrepancies do not overshadow the overall evidence supporting the charges of murde....
Eyewitness testimony must be consistent and corroborated; convictions cannot rely solely on the testimony of closely related witnesses without independent verification.
Conviction can be upheld based on the reliable testimony of a sole eyewitness, irrespective of the presence of corroborating evidence or independent witnesses, as long as the evidence is credible.
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
