Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 2284
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Jenjo Bankira, aged about 25 years, Son of Pura Bankira - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 207 of 2003
Decided On : 15-10-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Amrita Sinha, Amicus Curiae Mr. Saurabh Raj, A.C. to Amicus
Curiae Mrs. Shweta Suman, A.C. to Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent: Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P.
Mere physical presence at a crime scene does not constitute common intention. Prosecution must demonstrate active participation, a pre-arranged plan, or a meeting of minds to establish criminal liability where an accused is charged with assisting in or sharing the intent of an offense.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Law - Sections 302 / 34 of the Penal Code - Explosive substances - Conviction for murder based on common intention - Whether common intention is established in the absence of specific overt acts.
(B) Evidence - Ocular testimony - Requirement of proof for participation - Relying on uncorroborated testimony of witnesses - Mere presence of an accused at the scene of occurrence, without evidence of active role or shared intent, is insufficient to sustain a conviction for joint liability. (Paras 10, 11)
(C) Appeal - Scope - Appellate court is required to examine whether the lower court’s conclusion is perverse or unsupported by the weight of evidence - Where there is a total failure to establish a meeting of minds or specific contribution, the presumption of guilt cannot be sustained. (Paras 8, 11)
Facts of the case:
The deceased was killed by a bomb explosion while working in a field. The prosecution alleged that a group of individuals had visited the premises, leading to a fatal encounter. The appellant was implicated as part of the group. The prosecution failed to produce consistent eye-witness testimony or establish a specific overt act by the appellant or any clear link to the explosive devices used.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution witnesses failed to attribute any specific role to the appellant. Evidence regarding the alleged negotiation of items was not linked to the criminal act. The conviction was erroneously based on the assumption of presence without established common intention.
Issues: The main issues were whether the evidence was sufficient to prove a common intention to commit murder and if the conviction could be sustained in the absence of evidence demonstrating an overt act by the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The principle of common intention requires clear evidence of a pre-arranged plan or conscious participation. In the absence of evidence linking the appellant to the assault or the explosive substances, mere presence at the scene does not satisfy the requirements of criminal liability under the law.
Result: Appeal allowed; conviction set aside; appellant acquitted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural background and factual allegations of the criminal case. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. contention regarding insufficiency of evidence and misapplication of section 34 ipc. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. appreciation of prosecution witness testimonies and physical evidence. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. failure to prove common intention under section 34 ipc leads to acquittal. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. final acquittal order and incidental administrative directions. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. The appellant No. 1, namely, Baya Gagrai has been died during the pendency of this appeal. Therefore, his appeal stands abated vide order dated 21.08.2025.
2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 18.01.2003 and 20.01.2003 respectively passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in S.T. No. 372 of 1995 arising out of Chakradharpur (Toklo) P.S. Case No.86 of 1993, whereby and whereunder the present appellant along with deceased appellant have been held guilty for the offences under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections ¾ of Explosive Substance Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for the offence under section 302/34 of IPC. The appellants have further been directed to undergo R.I. for seven years for the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act read with Section 34 of the IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. We have already heard the arguments of Mrs. Amrita Sinha, learned amicus curiae for the alive appellant namely Jenjo Bankira and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl.P.P. for the State.
Factual Matrix:-
4. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the informant Suniya Samad along with his uncle Chaitan Samad were working in their field. Uncle was ploughing the field and the informant was cutting the bushes and aunt of the informant after giving them food in the field went for taking bath in the nearby river. It is further alleged that in the meantime, three persons came to the field of the informant and started talking with his uncle in connection with purchase of some Bamboo and two persons namely Baya Gagrai (since deceased) and Jenjo Bankira (present appellant) were standing nearby. The informant identified only two miscreants out of five persons and has alleged that one of the miscreants threw bomb on the informant’s uncle causing injuries on his back and thereafter fled away.
On the basis of above information, FIR was registered for the offence under section 302/ 34 of IPC and 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act against above accused persons. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for the offence under section 302/ 34 of IPC and 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act.
5. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of sessions where S.T. No. 372 of 1995 was registered. The accused persons denied from the charges and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of trial, impugned judgment of conviction and order sentence of the appellants was passed which has been assailed in this appeal. Submissions on behalf of appellant: -
6. Learned amicus curiae for the present appellant has submitted that altogether nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution and except the informant, none have claimed to be eye witnesses of the occurrence. P.W.-6, P.W.-7 and P.W.-8 were mentioned in the F.I.R. as an eye witness but have been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.-2 is the informant who has not corroborated the contents of the F.I.R. and his evidence suffers from material contradictions and discrepancies. None of the witnesses have attributed any overt act against the present appellant-Jenjo Bankira. No prior enmity or any kind of scuffle has been attributed against the present appellant at the time of relevant occurrence, rather, it is simply stated that he was present along with three main miscreants who were talking for purchase
