Jharkhand High Court Commutes Death Sentence to Life in Triple Murder 'Honour Killing' Case, Acquits 5 for Insufficient Evidence [S.302, 364 IPC] - 2025-08-08

Jharkhand High Court Commutes Death Sentence in Triple Murder 'Honour Killing' Case, Acquits Five

The court upheld the conviction of the girl's father and another accused but converted their death penalty to life imprisonment, citing mitigating factors.

---

Ranchi, Jharkhand – In a significant judgment concerning a brutal 2015 triple murder, the Jharkhand High Court has commuted the death sentences of two convicts, including the father of one of the victims, to life imprisonment. A Division Bench comprising Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Sanjay Prasad upheld their conviction for what the trial court termed an "honour killing" but acquitted five other co-accused due to insufficient and contradictory evidence.

The High Court was hearing a batch of criminal appeals filed by seven individuals and a death reference from the State against a 2017 trial court judgment. The trial court had sentenced three men to death and four to life imprisonment for the abduction and murder of three family members.

Case Background: A Marriage Against Family Wishes

The prosecution's case originated from a complaint by Raj Muni Mochi, stating that on the night of March 30-31, 2015, a group of armed men, claiming to be extremists, forcibly entered his home. They abducted his wife (Phul Kumari Devi), his disabled son (Chunmun Kumar), and his pregnant daughter-in-law (Sonakshi Devi) to a nearby forest to face a 'Jan Adalat' (people's court).

The next morning, the mutilated bodies of all three were discovered near the Sadawar river. The motive for the crime was an inter-caste marriage between Chunmun Kumar and Sonakshi Devi. Sonakshi was the daughter of Vinay Vishwakarma, one of the accused, who strongly opposed the union and had previously filed a case against Chunmun's family, leading to their imprisonment. After their release, the couple eloped again and solemnized a court marriage, which allegedly triggered the fatal attack.

Arguments in the High Court

The defence lawyers for the appellants argued that the prosecution's case was riddled with inconsistencies. They highlighted: -

Contradictory Witness Testimonies: Eyewitnesses, all family members of the deceased, gave conflicting accounts regarding whether the assailants' faces were covered, the lighting conditions (moonlit vs. dark night), and the manner of entry into the house. -

Doubtful Identification: For several accused, their names were introduced for the first time during the trial, and no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted, making their identification in court unreliable. -

Flawed Investigation: The investigation failed to explore the angle of extremist involvement, which the assailants had initially claimed. Furthermore, crucial recoveries, such as an axe, were not conclusively linked to the crime as the FSL report found no blood on them.

The State, represented by Special Public Prosecutors, contended that the eyewitness accounts were consistent in identifying the main perpetrators. They argued that the close proximity between the abduction and the discovery of the bodies, coupled with the clear motive of "honour killing," established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

High Court's Analysis: Sifting Evidence and Separating Roles

The High Court meticulously analysed the evidence against each appellant separately, noting that "the degree of proof, identification of the assailants and the stages in which their names have surfaced are at variance to each other."

• Acquittal of Five: The Court acquitted Sujit Prajapati, Gana Prajapati, Munarik Vishwakarma, Janeshwar Vishwakarma, and Manoj Chandrawanshi. The bench found that their identification was doubtful, with their names either missing from the FIR or emerging late in the investigation without corroboration. The court noted that "identification in the dock for the first time is tainted with doubt" when not supported by other evidence like a TIP, especially when witnesses were unfamiliar with the accused. For Manoj Chandrawanshi, the court discarded his confessional statement as it did not lead to the discovery of any conclusive evidence.

• Conviction of Two: The Court upheld the conviction of Vinay Vishwakarma (the girl's father) and Santosh Bhuiyan . It observed that their names were consistently mentioned by all key eyewitnesses from the beginning. The court stated, "His [Vinay Vishwakarma's] participation in the abduction has been clearly established by the prosecution and so far as the murders are concerned, since it appears to have been committed immediately after the abduction, clear inference can be drawn regarding his act of involvement in the said murders."

For Santosh Bhuiyan, his confessional statement led to the recovery of blood-stained clothes, which the FSL report confirmed contained human blood matching the blood group found at the crime scene.

Commutation of Death Sentence: Not the 'Rarest of Rare'

While upholding their conviction, the High Court addressed the question of the death sentence. It cited judgments like Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and Ramnaresh v. State of Chhattisgarh to balance aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

"In a death sentence matter, it is not only the nature of the crime but the background of the criminal, his psychology, his social conditions and his mindset for committing the offence are also relevant."

The court noted the following mitigating factors: - The appellants had no prior criminal antecedents. - There was no evidence to suggest they could not be reformed or rehabilitated.

The bench concluded that the case, though heinous, did not fall into the "rarest of rare" category. Consequently, the death sentence for Vinay Vishwakarma and Santosh Bhuiyan was commuted to rigorous imprisonment for life.

Final Verdict

The court dismissed the appeals of Vinay Vishwakarma and Santosh Bhuiyan with the modified sentence, while allowing the appeals of the other five accused and directing their immediate release. The death reference from the State was answered accordingly.