IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 52 of 1998(R)

---------

[Against the Judgment of conviction dated 06.02.1998 and Order of sentence dated 07.02.1998 passed by learned 3^rd Additional

Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, in Sessions Trial No.100 of 1994]

1. Surendra Karmakar alias Suru Karmakar, son of Paul

Karmakar

2. Mateen Karmakar, son of Lakhan Karamkar

3. Badal Sardar alias Patin Sardar, son of Gurab Sardar All are residents of village-Matladih, Police Station

Bagbera, Town Jamshedpur, District-Singhbhum West.

… … Appellants

Versus

The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) … … Respondent

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

…..

For the Appellants : Mr. Chandan Kumar, Advocate

For the Respondent : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P.

…..

Order No.07/Dated 20^th December, 2025

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The instant appeal is Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 06.02.1998 and order of sentence dated 07.02.1998 passed by learned 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, in Sessions Trial No.100 of 1994 whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment

for life.

Factual Matrix

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 prosecution story in brief as per the allegation made in the First Information Report. The First Information Report was lodged on the basis of the fardbeyan dated 19.07.1993 of the informant Motka Samad (PW-1), who is the brother of the deceased Rodea Samad, which reads hereunder as: -

The case of the prosecution is that in the preceding night (i.e., on 18.07.1993) at 9.30 P.M., all the three accused persons came to the house of the informant and took his younger brother, Rodea Samad, to village Jagarnathpur to attend a marriage. When his brother did not return in the night, the informant along with same co-villagers said to have started searching him in the next morning in course of which he found his brother lying seriously injured in a field between the villages Jagarnathpur and Matladih.

3. Further, it is said that when the informant in presence of the co-villagers enquired from his brother, he told him that at about 4'O Clock in the morning at a time when he was returning after attending the marriage, all of a sudden, the three accused persons assaulted him by means of tangi, rod and lathi and when he fell down injured, they threw him in the field and fled away.

4. It has further been said that since the deceased was found to be seriously injured, the informant and others took him to the Tata Main Hospital where in course of the treatment, the deceased died.

5. It has further been stated that few days before the occurrence, there was an altercation between the deceased and the accused persons and due to that reason they are alleged to have brutally assaulted the deceased which resulted in his death.

6. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, Parsudih (Baghbera) P.S. Case No.101 of 1993 was registered against the accused persons under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C.

7. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the appellants finding the accusation of commission of murder.

8. After cognizance of the offence, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charge under Sections 302/34 1.P.C. was framed to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9. The prosecution has altogether examined 13 witnesses including the doctor but the Investigating Officer has not been examined.

10. The postmortem was conducted by the doctor who has been examined as PW-6.

11. The learned trial court, based upon the testimony of PW-1 and considering the same to be corroborated by the testimony of PW-6, the doctor, and on the basis of the dying dec