2026 Supreme(Jhk) 342

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ.
Kameshwar Yadav @ Kamleshwar Yadav @ Kiddu Yadav, son of Jhumak Yadav - Appellant 
Versus 
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1671 of 2017
Decided On : 12-03-2026

Conviction for murder by unlawful assembly sustainable on reliable sole eyewitness to killing, corroborated by medical evidence and abduction witnesses, despite FIR delay, witness non-examination, and scene tampering when explained and evidence trustworthy.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 148, 149/364, 149/379, 302 - Arms Act - Section 27 - CLA Act - Section 17(2) - Murder by extremist mob - Three persons abducted from forest hut and killed by firearm injuries - Conviction based on sole eyewitness to murder (PW2), who was also abducted and released after identifying victims - Testimony reliable as corroborated by medical evidence showing multiple gunshot wounds, recovery of empty cartridges, and eyewitnesses to abduction (PW1, PW7) - No legal bar to conviction on single trustworthy eyewitness (Paras 44-49) - Non-examination of material witness (hut owner absent on work day) not fatal where examined witnesses reliable and consistent (Paras 50, 93) - Delay in FIR (two days) and recording PW2 statement (explained as next day) not suspicious given shock, fear of extremists, triple family murder (Paras 52-58, 100) - Removal of bodies from scene before inquest and truck transport not vitiating case with cogent eyewitness, medical, and recovery evidence; inquest purpose limited to apparent death cause (Paras 60, 102-104).

(B) Evidence - Quality over quantity - Conviction possible on sole eyewitness if inspires confidence, cogent, credible; testimony weighed not counted (Paras 44-49).

(C) Criminal Trial - Deficiencies like scene tampering, witness non-examination, delays not fatal if explained and overcome by reliable direct evidence (Paras 42-58, 90-109).

Facts of the case:
Family members and villager went to forest for cultivation, stayed in hut. On evening of incident, extremist group surrounded hut, abducted three staying inside along with one villager (PW2), tying hands/legs, assaulting. Took towards another area, separated PW2 after identity disclosure, shot three dead with firearms, stole licensed rifles/cartridges. Bodies recovered next morning, FIR after two days.

Findings of Court:
Prosecution proved charges beyond reasonable doubt via reliable PW2 (eyewitness to murder, identifying appellant as shooter/member), supported by abduction eyewitnesses, doctor (gunshot fatalities), IO (inquest, antecedents, recoveries), FSL report. Appellant active banned outfit member.

Issues: (i) Sufficiency of sole eyewitness (PW2) for murder charges with s.149; (ii) Non-examination of material witness fatal?; (iii) FIR delay, PW2 statement delay suspicious?; (iv) Scene tampering (bodies moved) discredits prosecution?

Ratio Decidendi: Sole eyewitness testimony sufficient for conviction if trustworthy, corroborated by medical/recovery evidence; minor investigative lapses/delays/non-examination immaterial if explained/plausible and direct evidence unblemished; unlawful assembly common object for abduction/murder/theft proved by consistent eyewitnesses, medical, circumstances. Result : Appeal dismissed; conviction and life sentence under s.302 r/w149 IPC etc. upheld.

Table of Content
1. maoists abducted and murdered three victims. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. investigation and trial proceedings outlined. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. witness contradictions and procedural delays argued. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
4. medical evidence corroborates eyewitness testimony. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
5. eyewitnesses confirm abduction and firearm murders. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
6. tampering insignificant with cogent evidence. (Para 43 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105)
7. sole reliable eyewitness suffices for conviction. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49)
8. delays and non-examination not fatal. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58)
9. appeal dismissed; conviction upheld. (Para 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112)

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The present Appeal has been filed under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of conviction dated 09.03.2017 and order of sentence dated 20.03.2017, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Lohardaga, in Sessions Trial Case No. 85 of 2016, whereby and whereunder, the learned Trial court has convicted the appellant under sections 148, 149/364, 149/379, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 27 of Arms Act and section 17(2) of C.L.A. Act and sentenced him to undergo RI for life with fine of Rs.10,000/- under section 364 r/w 149 and under section 302 of the IPC with default stipulation of RI for three months. The appellant is further sentenced to undergo RI for three years u/s 379 r/w 149 and u/s 148 of the . The appellant is further sentenced to undergo RI for three years and fine of Rs. 10,000 under section 27Arms Act and in default he shall further undergo RI for three months and he is further sentenced to undergo RI for three years u/s 17(2) of the C.L.A. Act. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Prosecution Case:

2. This Court, before proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, deems it fit and proper to refer the background of institution of prosecution case.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant Lal Pradeep Nath Sahdeo (PW-7)is that on 20.3.2015 at about 05:00 p.m. the informant alongwith his father Lal Jai Kishore Nath Sahdeo, uncle Lal Bal Kishore Nath Sahdeo, Pramod Nath Sahdeo, Arvind Nath Sahdeo, Praveen Nath Sahdeo along with co-villager Phuddin, Ravi etc had gone to Marayan forest where they had cultivable lands. During the night they stayed in a hut in the forest and they were also armed with licensed gun. On 21.3.2015 at about 05:00 p.m. the informant along with Arvind and Praveen were strolling at a little distance from the hut whereas his father Lal Kishore Nath Sahdeo, uncle Lal Bal Kishore Nath Sahdeo and cousin Lal Pramod Nath Sahdeo were in the hut.

4. The informant further stated that he saw from a distance that MCC extremists variously armed had surrounded the hut. The informant hid himself and saw that Kameshwar Yadav of the MCC Squad was talking with Madan Yadav on his phone. After sometime the Maoist took his father, uncle and cousin towards Sahedapat under captivity. The informant and others somehow reached their village in the late night and informed about the incident to the familymembers.

5. In the morning on 22.3.2015 a search was made after which dead bodies of Jai Kishore Nath Sahdeo, Lal Bal Kishore Nath Sahdeo and cousin Lal Pramod Nath Sahdeo were recovered in between Marayan forest and Sahedapat. All the three persons were murdered by causing fire arm injury.

6. The informant has further stated that the Maoist had stolen away two licensed rifle and 100 pieces of cartridges. Further some empty cartridges were also

Click Here to Read the rest of this document