SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 347

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, DEEPAK ROSHAN, JJ.
The State of Jharkhand – Appellant
Versus
Sanjay Yadav @ Sanjay Prasad Yadav, S/o Sri Bal Kishun Mahto @ Balkrishn – Respondent
Death Reference No. 01 of 2020 With Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 337 of 2020
Decided On : 09-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
For the Respondent: Mr. B.M. Tripathi, Sr. Adv.

Eyewitness accounts unreliable due to inconsistencies, visibility doubts (distances, covered faces, hiding), suppressed initial report; benefit of doubt requires acquittal in multiple murder case by unlawful assembly.

Headnote:(A) IPC - Sections 147, 148, 458/149, 302/149 - Rioting, house-trespass with deadly weapons, murder by common intention - Brutal murders by severing heads after tying hands - Eyewitness identification doubted due to moonlit night visibility issues, distances (100-125 feet, 250-500 meters), witnesses hiding or in poor vantage, covered/painted faces, mental instability, inconsistencies in overt acts and sequences - Suppression of initial written report dated day of incident (25-09-2004) while FIR based on 26-09-2004 report - No invocation of Section 319 CrPC despite similar evidence against others given final form - Inherent weaknesses in prosecution evidence create reasonable doubt - Conviction and death sentence set aside - Acquittal. (Paras 7, 8, 14-19)

(B) CrPC - Section 366 - Death reference - Not confirmed where trial court conviction unsustainable. (Para 20)

(C) Evidence - Eyewitness credibility - Rural setting keen observation insufficient against specific contradictions like hiding for hour post-jump from terrace, failure to raise alarm, seeing distant events while concealed, descriptive roles despite obstacles. (Paras 13-17)

Facts of the case:
Group of 20-25 armed persons attacked house in evening, dragged out four victims, tied hands with cloth/lungi, pinned to ground, severed heads with sharp weapons (farsa, gadasa); one victim taken 250-500 meters away for similar killing; bombs thrown, slogans raised while fleeing. Informant jumped from terrace, hid for hour. Multiple witnesses claimed identification but turned hostile or inconsistent. Defence raised alibi via friends' testimony of presence elsewhere 6:30-10:00 PM.

Findings of Court:
Prosecution eyewitnesses' accounts pivotal but unreliable due to physical impossibilities, contradictions; suppression of first report draws adverse inference; no prejudice argued from charge errors but evidence fails.

Issues: Reliability of eyewitness identification amidst visibility claims, distances, concealment; effect of suppressed initial report; appreciation of alibi; validity of conviction sans Section 319 for similar accused.

Ratio Decidendi: When eyewitness evidence incoherent, inconsistent, exaggerated, contradicted by cross-examination (hiding, distances, covered faces, mental state), and marred by suppressed first information, identification and participation uncertain - benefit of doubt mandates acquittal; finer nuances overlooked by trial court render judgment erroneous.

Result: Criminal appeal allowed; death reference answered in negative; conviction and sentences set aside; accused released forthwith if not wanted elsewhere.

Table of Content
1. death reference and appeal against murder convictions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. armed mob murders four victims by beheading. (Para 4)
3. eyewitnesses identify accused roles in murders. (Para 5)
4. accused deny involvement; alibi evidence presented. (Para 6 , 7)
5. disputed identification, fir suppression versus eyewitness reliability. (Para 8 , 9)
6. brutal murders confirmed; minor witnesses unreliable. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
7. key eyewitnesses unreliable due to visibility, hiding, suppression. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
8. incoherent evidence grants benefit of doubt; acquittal ordered. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)

Judgment :

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.

1. Heard Mr. B.M. Tripathi, learned senior counsel for the appellants in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 337 of 2020 and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P.P.

2. Death Reference No. 01 of 2020 has been put up before us for confirmation of the death sentence imposed upon both the convicts under Section 366 Cr.P.C.

3. One of the convicts (appellant) has preferred a separate appeal being Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 337 of 2020 which is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated14-02-2020 (sentence passed on 19-02-2020) passed by Sri Vishwa Nath Shukla, learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Koderma in S.T. Case No. 75/2016, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 458/149 and 302/149 IPC and have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 02 years for the offence under Section 147 , rigorous imprisonment for 03 years for the offence under Section 148 , rigorous imprisonment for 14 years along with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- each for the offence under Section 458/149 and in default in payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for 2 years and they have also been sentenced to death under Section 302/149 along with the fine of Rs. 50,000/- each and in default in payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for 02 years.

4. The prosecution case arises out of the written report of Suresh Kumar dated 26-09-2004 in which it has been stated that on 25-09-2004 at about 8:00PM, 20-25 persons variously armed had attacked his house. The informant along with Kapildeo Prasad Yadav, Neeraj Kumar alias Sudhir Kumar were in the terrace of the house and on seeing the armed miscreants, the informant jumped from the terrace and hid himself. The informant had seen his father Kapildeo Prasad Yadav being dragged by Darogi Prasad Yadav, who had a farsa, Ranjit Prasad Yadav who had a gadasa and Bipin Prasad Yadav who had a rifle, and taken outside the house after which the hands of Kapildeo Prasad Yadav were tied with a gamchha and thereafter his head was chopped off with a‘farsa. It has been alleged that the brother of the informant Neeraj Kumar alias Sudhir Kumar was also dragged towards the door by Sunil Prasad Yadav who was armed with a farsa and rifle, Nawlesh Prasad Yadav who was armed with a gadasa and Rajesh Prasad Yadav who was armed with a farsa and rifle and after tying his hands with the lungi he was wearing, he was thrown on the ground and Nawlesh Prasad Yadav and Rajesh Prasad Yadav pressed Neeraj Kumar to the ground, while Sunil Prasad Yadav cut off his head with a farsa and Nawlesh Prasad Yadav assaulted him with a gadasa on his abdomen. It has further been alleged that when Anoj Kumar started raising an alarm, his hands were tied by Rambriksh Yadav with a gamcha after which Rajkumar Prasad Yadav and Ram Prasad Yadav thrashed Anoj Kumar to the ground and Rambriksh Yadav cut his throat with a farsa. The assailants thereafter caught hold of Sakaldeo Yadav and his hands were also tied with a gamcha by Umesh Yadav and after throwing him on the ground, Sanjay Yadav and Umesh Yadav pressed him, while Anil Yadav cut his neck with a farsa and Sanjay Yadav assaulted him on his abdomen with a gadasa. At the time of the occurrence, Baldeo Prasad Yadav was instigating the others not to spare anyone. The miscreants, while fleeing away, had thrown

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top