Jharkhand High Court Commutes Death Sentence Of Men In Case Involving Murder Of 6 Police Personnel

The Jharkhand High Court has commuted the death sentence of two men to imprisonment for life, in a case involving murder of six police personnel.

The Court was deciding two Criminal Appeals and a Death Reference which were earlier heard by the Division Bench and there was a difference of opinion between the Judges.

A Single Bench of Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary observed, “Despite the gravity of offence and absence of any mitigating factor in favour of the appellants, there is one factor that weighs heavily for commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment—that is difference of opinion on the point of conviction. In the present appeals, one of the Hon’ble Judge of this Court had dissented and in his separate judgment had recorded a judgment of acquittal. Therefore, it will not be proper to confirm the death sentence.”

The Bench said that since the evidence is that the convicts were present at the place of occurrence and had participated, but there being no evidence of abetment in the offence, therefore charge under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) is not proved.

Advocates S.K. Murtty and Jitendra S. Singh appeared for the Appellants/Convicts, while Special PP Priya Shrestha appeared for the Respondent/State.

Factual Background

As per the prosecution case, the Superintendent of Police (SP), Pakur on his way from Dumka to Pakur along with armed escort party were ambushed by extremists in forest area. In the intense firing that followed from the extremists, the SP and five other Police personnel were mortally wounded and fell in their line of duty. Five died on spot and one died while being shifted for treatment to the hospital. Two other police personnels sustained grievous injury, but survived. Reinforcement was rushed from the nearby police stations to the place of occurrence, which rescued the injured police personnels.

Hence, an FIR was registered and thereafter, cognizance of the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 326, 307, 302, 427, 379, 332, 333, 353, 396, and 120B of IPC, Section 27 of Arms Act, 1959 and Section 17 of CLA Act was taken. The Trial Court acquitted five accused persons and convicted the Appellants (two in number). They were sentenced to death for the offence under Sections 302 and 396 of IPC. In view of the difference of judicial opinion, the Appeal was laid before the High Court under Section 392 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), under the Orders of the Chief Justice.

Court’s Observations

The High Court after hearing the arguments from both sides, noted, “… it cannot be accepted that injured witnesses at the time of incidence had completely become unconscious, so as to be incapable of identifying the appellants. … testimony of PW 30 and PW 31, has a ring of truth as there is nothing on record to remotely suggest that these two witnesses were actuated by any extraneous consideration or motive to falsely implicate these two appellants in the case, by identifying them in Dock.”

The Court remarked that in hour of peril, when a person is under mortal threat to his life, the cognitive faculties are accentuated to record every little detail received by senses.

“… even if the recovery of the bulletproof jacket of the SP on the disclosure statement made by the Appellant Tala Da is discarded, and the testimony of the police witnesses who arrived at the place of occurrence as a reinforcement is not accepted under section 6 of the Evidence Act, yet the testimony of injured witnesses PW 30 and PW 31 is sufficient to prove the charge that these two appellants were part of the extremist party, who laid ambush, when Superintendent of Police, Pakur was returning from Dumka after a meeting with the DIG, near culvert in the forest area and mowed down the police party”, it said.

The Court observed that most of the organised crimes like the present one is preceded by thorough planning and an element of conspiracy to execute the crime.

“Criminal conspiracy is a substantive offence punishable under section 120-B of the IPC., nevertheless, proof of principal offence does not perforce lead to the proof of criminal conspiracy. There should be some evidence, in the form of anything said, done or written, to disclose that the offenders had conspired to bring into fructification the common design in commission of the offence. In the absence of any such evidence of criminal conspiracy, in the present case, the charge under section 120-B is not proved”, it added.

The Court further said that the Trial Court appears to have misdirected itself in recording a conviction under Section 109 of the IPC against the Appellants who had participated in the offence and were present at the place of occurrence.

“When an abettor is present at the place of occurrence, he can be convicted under section 114 of IPC and not under section 109 of IPC. However, in order to constitute the offence of abetment there needs to be an evidence that the he instigates, aided, engaged or conspired with the other accused person to bring about the criminal result in view of the definition under Section 107 of IPC. Provision of section 109 of IPC is directed against a class of offenders who is not present at the place of occurrence or has participated in the offence, but has abetted its commission”, it also noted.

Conclusion

Moreover, the Court emphasised that one cannot ordinarily be both an abettor as well as a participant in an offence and here since the evidence is that the Appellants were present at the place of occurrence and had participated, but there being no evidence of abetment in the offence, therefore charge under Section 109 of IPC is not proved.

“There cannot be a scintilla of doubt that the ambush was a carefully pre-meditated assault on the Superintendent of Police, who had been spearheading anti-extremist operations. It was cold-bloodedly planned and ruthlessly executed, resulting in the martyrdom of six police personnel, including the SP, while they were in the line of duty. The attack was not merely upon the police force, but upon the sovereign authority of the State, exercised through its law enforcement agencies. The rule of law, a fundamental tenet of our constitutional framework, is realised and sustained through the institutions and instrumentalities of the State”, it remarked.

The Court added that the very foundation of the nation stands imperilled if armed groups are permitted to challenge and overwhelm the executive arm of the State.

“In this view of matter, Death Reference No. 04 of 2018 is answered in the negative and is dismissed, and death sentence awarded under Section 302 and Section 396 of IPC is commuted to imprisonment for life against both the Appellants with a fine of Rs 10,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, the appellants will serve SI of three months each. … Judgment of conviction and sentence under Sections 307,333,353, 148 and 427 of IPC, Section 27 of Arms Act and Section 17 of CLA Act awarded by the learned trial Court against both the appellants is affirmed”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Appeals and commuted the death sentence.

Cause Title- The State of Jharkhand v. Sukhlal @ Prabir Murmu & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:JHHC:36733)

Click here to read/download the Judgment