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) 348

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ.
Nundeo Mehra, son of Jhalku Mehra – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) – Respondent
Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 474 of 1998(P) with Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 477 of 1998(P)
Decided On : 12-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent: Mr. B.N. Ojha, Spl. P.P., Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, APP.

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 reasonable doubt.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302 and 148 - Murder and Rioting - Conviction based on testimony of sole eyewitness (informant) - Testimony must be wholly reliable and inspire confidence - No legal impediment to conviction on single witness under Evidence Act Section 134 if credible, but quality over quantity (Paras 48-54) - Material contradictions in eyewitness account: deceased dragged out or came out himself; assault visibility inconsistent with house layout from courtyard position claimed - Inquest report places body at separate house exit - Suspicious conduct of husband (fled, returned wet after bath per multiple witnesses including defense and hostile) - Defense witnesses and hostile witness parts entitled equal weight - Prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt - Benefit of doubt to accused.

(B) Witnesses - Defense and hostile - Entitled to equal treatment as prosecution witnesses; evidence not discarded wholly (Paras 70-74).

(C) Criminal Trial - Proof - Guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt; if two views possible, favor innocence (Paras 76-81).

Facts of the case:
Informant and husband sitting in verandah when group armed with weapons entered house seeking husband who fled; they allegedly dragged out sleeping father-in-law, one inflicted fatal bhujali wounds; theft alleged; old enmity motive; trial court convicted main assailant under Section 302 (life) and others under Section 148 (2 years RI); appeals by survivors after some died.

Findings of Court:
Sole eyewitness testimony unreliable due to contradictions and improbabilities; prosecution case not proved; conviction and sentence set aside; appellants acquitted.

Issues: Reliability of sole eyewitness testimony given contradictions, house layout inconsistency with claimed visibility, and unnatural family conduct; sufficiency for conviction under Sections 302/148.

Ratio Decidendi: Where sole eyewitness evidence has material contradictions on key facts like manner/place of assault, unsupported by layout/inquest, and family conduct suspicious, it lacks ring of truth; accused get benefit of doubt as guilt not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Result: Appeals allowed.

Table of Content
1. joint appeals against murder conviction heard together (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. prosecution alleges group murder and robbery motive enmity (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. challenge sole witness credibility due enmity non-corroboration (Para 10 , 11)
4. state upholds conviction on reliable eyewitness testimony (Para 12 , 13)
5. witness testimonies reveal inconsistencies and hostility (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
6. informant and io evidence shows place contradictions unseized lamp (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
7. defence challenges sole eyewitness reliability (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46)
8. conviction possible on trustworthy sole eyewitness (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54)
9. material contradictions discredit informant testimony occurrence (Para 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69)
10. defence witnesses equal weight unnatural conduct (Para 70 , 71 , 73 , 74 , 75)
11. benefit doubt where prosecution fails reasonable proof (Para 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83)
12. conviction set aside appeals allowed acquittal (Para 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88)

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. Since both the appeals arise out of the common judgment of conviction dated 28.07.1998 and the order of sentence dated 29.07.1998 passed by the learned 6th Addl. Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 306 of 1995, as such they have been tagged and taken up together for analogous hearing and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. It needs to mention herein that the appellants in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.477 of 1998 (P), namely, the appellant no.2-Suresh Mehra, appellant no.3-Jhalku Mehra, appellant no.5-Dinesh Mehra, appellant no.7-Lukhu Mehra and appellant no.8-Lakxman Mehra had died during pendency of the said appeal and, as such, vide order dated 05.02.2026, the appeal being Criminal Appeal (DB) No.477 of 1998 (P) stands abated against these appellants.

Prayer

3. These appeals under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are directed against the judgment of conviction dated 28.07.1998 and the order of sentence dated 29.07.1998 passed by the learned 6th Addl. Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 306 of 1995 whereby and whereunder the appellant, namely, Nundeo Mehra [ in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.474 of 1998(P)] has been convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the said offence whereas the alive appellants in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.477 of 1998(P), namely, Naresh Mehra, Shanker Mehra and Jai Kant Mehra have been convicted under sections 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for two years for the said offence.

4. The prosecution story, in brief, as per the fardbayan dated 23.02.1995 of the informant Daya Devi (P.W-6), is that on 22.02.1995 at 9 PM, informant Daya Devi and her husband Kisto Mehra (P.W.-5), after having their meals were sitting at the dhaba (Verandah) of their house and an earthen lamp was burning. At that time, accused/ appellant-Nundeo Mehra armed with a bhujali, Shankar Mehra armed with a knife, Jhalku Mehra with axe and Laxman Mehra, Suresh Mehra, Naresh Mehra, Dinesh Mahra, Lukhu Mehra and Jaikant Mehra, all armed with lathi entered the house of the informant and Nundeo Mehra, Shankar Mehra and Jhalku Mehra called out the name of the informant’s husband and said that they would kill Kisto Mehra, upon which Kisto Mehra fled away. Thereafter, all the accused persons came to the dhaba (Verandah) and searched for Kisto Mehra.

5. It is further stated in the fardbeyan of the informant that when the accused persons could not find the husband of the informant, then Nundeo Mehra, Shankar Mehra and Jhalku Mehra dragged out Santu Mehra(deceased), aged about 65 years, the father-in-law of the informant, who was sleeping inside the room and Nundeo Mehra assaulted with bhujali on the fore- head, neck and nose and kill

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