Back
2026 Supreme(Jhk) 789
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Lakhan Kumar Verma @ Lakhan Verma, S/o Late Triveni Verma - Appellant
Versus
Union of India through CBI - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1578 of 2022
Decided On : 14-07-2026
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Murder and Culpable Homicide
Act Referred
EVIDENCE ACT : S.65(b), S.8
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.313, S.91
Headnote
(B) Evidence - Motive - Relevance of motive - Absence of motive holds little significance when direct, forensic, and technical evidence is robust and points unequivocally towards guilt - Evidence of motive primarily serves as a link in cases resting solely on circumstantial evidence. (Paras 9, 20)
(C) Appellate Jurisdiction - Scope and ambit - Court sitting in appeal is not to substitute its view for that of the lower court; it is only to ensure the decision is not afflicted by perversity, illegality, or vice which may compromise it beyond redemption. (Paras 7, 21)
Facts of the case:
A pedestrian was fatally struck while walking in the early morning by a vehicle that intentionally swerved toward the victim. The incident was recorded on surveillance equipment, revealing the vehicle deliberately altered its path. Subsequent investigation established the vehicle was stolen and driven by the accused. Evidence included forensic reconstruction, digital surveillance, DNA matching of the accused with materials from the vehicle, and eyewitness testimony. The accused claimed the collision was an accident caused by road debris, which was unsupported by physical evidence.
Findings of Court:
The court determined the collision was a deliberate, pre-meditated act. Forensic reconstruction and digital evidence proved the driver maintained full control of the vehicle, intentionally steering towards the victim. The medical evidence and lack of intoxication in the accused confirmed the willful nature of the act. The cohesive participation of the accused established their common intention.
Issues: The main issues addressed were whether the collision was a genuine accident or a pre-meditated act of murder, and whether the evidence was sufficient to establish common intention among the accused for joint criminal liability.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an intentional bodily injury is inflicted that is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, it constitutes murder under Section 300(3) IPC, irrespective of the absence of previous enmity or motive. Acting in concert from the procurement of the weapon of the crime (the motor vehicle) to the execution of the act establishes common intention under Section 34 IPC.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
For the Appellant : Mr. Sabyasanchi, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Prashant Pallav, Sr. Adv.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history, summary of witnesses, and factual background of the prosecution and defense. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. summary of defense arguments regarding circumstantial evidence and prosecution arguments on ocular and forensic evidence. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court's analysis of collected ocular, forensic, and technical evidence regarding the deliberate nature of the incident. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. application of section 300 'thirdly' (intention to cause fatal injury) and section 34 ipc (common intention). (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. final confirmation of conviction due to established culpability and dismissal of the appeal. (Para 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT :
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.
1. Heard Mr. Sabyasanchi, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned senior counsel for the CBI.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28-07-2022 (sentence passed on 06-08-2022) passed by Sri Rajni Kant Pathak, learned Special Judge CBI, Dhanbad in connection with S.T. Case No. 206/2021, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offences under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life without any remission and commutation till their last breath along with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default in payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year under Section 302/34IPC. They have further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years along with the fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 201/34 IPC and in default in payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case arises out of a written report submitted by Kritee Sinha in which it has been stated that on 28-07-2021 at 05:00AM, the husband of the informant, namely, Uttam Anand, District & Additional Sessions Judge-VIII had gone out for a morning walk and even after expiry of a considerable length of time when he did not return, a search was made and it came to light that the husband of the informant was taken by the locals in an injured condition to Shaheed Nirmal Mahto Medical College & Hospital (hereinafter referred to as SNMMCH). In the meantime, a video was seen circulating in the mobile from which it could be deciphered that an auto rickshaw driver had deliberately collided against the husband of the informant as a result of which, he died.
Based on the aforesaid allegations, Dhanbad P.S.Case No. 300/2021 was instituted against an unknown auto rickshaw driver under Section 302 IPC. Initially, the investigation was conducted by the Dhanbad Police, but subsequently a Special Investigation Team was constituted by the orders of the Director General of Police vide Order No. 182/NGO dated 29-07-2021. However, in view of the gravity of the offence, the Government of Jharkhand directed to hand over the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation vide Memo No. 2715 dated 30-07-2021. Thereafter, the Government of Jharkhand, Department of Home Prison and Disaster Management vide Notification No. 10/CBI/410/2021/ 2075 dated 30-07-2021 conveyed its consent for transfer of investigation of Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 300/2021 to CBI. Notification F. No. 228/47/2021-AVD- II dated 04-08-2021 was issued by the DOPT, Govt. of India on 04-08-2021. Pursuant to the aforesaid notification on 04-08-2021 itself, the CBI re-registered the case vide RC 048 2021 S 0005 dated 04-08-2021 under Section 302 IPC in CBI Special Crime-I, New Delhi for investigation into Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 300/2021 under Section 302 IPC. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted bearing No. 08/2021 dated 20-10-2021 against Lakhan Kumar Verma and Rahul Kumar Verma under Section 302, 201/34 IPC after which cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of learned Special Judge, CBI, D
