{"id":265990,"date":"2003-12-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-12-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushil-murmu-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-12-december-2003"},"modified":"2018-02-23T18:33:18","modified_gmt":"2018-02-23T13:03:18","slug":"sushil-murmu-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-12-december-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushil-murmu-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-12-december-2003","title":{"rendered":"Sushil Murmu vs State Of Jharkhand on 12 December, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sushil Murmu vs State Of Jharkhand on 12 December, 2003<\/div>\n
Author: J Arijit Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, Arijit Pasayat.<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  947 of 2003\n\nPETITIONER:\nSushil Murmu\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Jharkhand\t\t\t\t\t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/12\/2003\n\nBENCH:\nDORAISWAMY RAJU & ARIJIT PASAYAT.\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
ARIJIT PASAYAT,J<\/p>\n
\tThe little drops of humanness which conjointly make humanity a
\ncherished desire of mankind had seemingly dried up, when  \ta young
\nchild of 9 years was sacrificed before Goddess Kali by the appellant for
\nhis own prosperity is what the prosecution alleges.\n<\/p>\n
“Little drops of
\nWater, little grains of sand,’
\nMake the mighty ocean
\nAnd the pleasant land,
\nLittle deeds of kindness, little
\nWords of love,
\nHelp to make earth happy
\nLike the heaven above.”\n<\/p>\n
Said Julia A.f. Cabney in “Little Things”.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe still, sad music of humanity had become silent when it was
\nforsaken by the accused-appellant is what has been found by the Courts
\nbelow.\n<\/p>\n
11th December, 1996 turned out to be a heart-breaking day for
\nSomlal Besra (PW-2). In the evening of that day he found his son Chirku
\nBesra (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) missing from house. He
\nsearched for him making inquiries from various persons. Information
\nsurfaced that he was sacrificed before Goddess Kali by the appellant.
\nTwo other persons, his wife and mother were also said to be parties to
\nthe gruesome killing. The prosecution case centered round extra judicial
\nconfession made by accused before large number of persons, recovery of
\ndead body at the behest of the accused-appellant and evidence of a
\nwitness who saw the accused carrying a bag on a bicycle which was thrown
\nto a pond and after throwing the bag to the pond the accused returning
\nby bicycle. The severed head was recovered from the bag thrown to the
\npond. Information was given to police, investigation was undertaken.
\nAll the three accused persons were tried for offences punishable under
\nSections 302<\/a> and 201<\/a> of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the
\nIPC<\/a>‘). The appellant was found guilty for both the accusations and was
\nsentenced to death for the former and 7 years rigorous imprisonment for
\nthe latter. Benefit of doubt was, however, given to the co-accused and
\nthey were acquitted.  Reference was made by the trial Judge i.e. the
\nFirst Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara for confirmation of death
\nsentence under Section 366<\/a> of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in
\nshort ‘the Code’) by the Jharkhand High Court which by the impugned
\njudgment upheld both the convictions and sentence.  It was held that the
\nmurder was gruesome and death sentence was most appropriate sentence.
\nAgainst the said judgment the present appeal has been filed.  While
\ngranting leave, by order dated 4.8.2003 scope of appeal was limited to
\nthe question of sentence.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. Anil Kumar Mittal, learned amicus curiae submitted that even
\naccording to prosecution killing was not done with any motive. Though
\nsuperstition is not expected and encouraged in modern society, yet an
\nilliterate and tribal born and brought up in an atmosphere surcharged
\nwith superstition should not be awarded death sentence. The modern
\ntrend, according to him, is reformation and when in the case at hand
\nbalance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances is drawn up,
\nthe mitigating circumstances far outweigh the aggravating situation and,
\ntherefore, the death sentence should be altered to life sentence.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn response, learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted
\nthat a 9 years old child was sacrificed in the most brutal and diabolic
\nmanner.  This is a case which falls within the “rarest of rare”
\ncategory and, therefore, death sentence has been rightly awarded.  It
\nwas pointed out that it is not the first instance when the accused is
\ncharged with commission of such offences.  In fact, as records reveal,
\nthe appellant along with two of his relatives was facing trial at the
\nrelevant time for committing murder by sacrificing of his own brother
\nbefore Goddess Kali.\n<\/p>\n
Section 302<\/a> IPC prescribes death or life imprisonment as the
\npenalty for murder. While doing so, the Code<\/a> instructs the court as to
\nits application.  The changes which the Code<\/a> has undergone in the last
\nthree decades clearly indicate that Parliament is taking note of
\ncontemporary criminological thought and movement. It is not difficult to
\ndiscern that in the Code<\/a>, there is a definite swing towards life
\nimprisonment. Death sentence is ordinarily ruled out and can only be
\nimposed for “special reasons”, as provided in Section 354(3)<\/a>.  There is
\nanother provision in the Code<\/a> which also uses the significant expression
\n“special reason”. It is Section 361<\/a>.  Section 360<\/a> of the Code re-
\nenacts, in substance, Section 562<\/a> of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898
\n(in short “the old Code”). Section 361<\/a> which is a new provision in the
\nCode<\/a> makes it mandatory for the court to record “special reasons” for
\nnot applying the provisions of Section 360<\/a>.  Section 361<\/a> thus casts a
\nduty upon the court to apply the provisions of Section 360<\/a> wherever it
\nis possible to do so and to state “special reasons” if it does not do
\nso. In the context of Section 360<\/a>, the “special reasons” contemplated
\nby Section 361<\/a> must be such as to compel the court to hold that it is
\nimpossible to reform and rehabilitate the offender after examining the
\nmatter with due regard to the age, character and antecedents of the
\noffender and the circumstances in which the offence was committed.  This
\nis some indication by the legislature that reformation and
\nrehabilitation of offenders and not mere deterrence, are now among the
\nforemost objects of the administration of criminal justice in our
\ncountry.  Section 361<\/a> and Section 354(3)<\/a> have both entered the statute
\nbook at the same time and they are part of the emerging picture of
\nacceptance by the legislature of the new trends in criminology.  It
\nwould not, therefore, be wrong to assume that the personality of the
\noffender as revealed by his age, character, antecedents and other
\ncircumstances and the tractability of the offender to reform must
\nnecessarily play the most prominent role in determining the sentence to
\nbe awarded.  Special reasons must have some relation to these factors,
\nCriminal justice deals with complex human problems and diverse human
\nbeings.  A Judge has to balance the personality of the offender with the
\ncircumstances, situations and the reactions and choose the appropriate
\nsentence to be imposed.\n<\/p>\n
It should be borne in mind that before the amendment of Section
\n367(5)<\/a> of the old Code, by the Criminal Procedure Code<\/a> (Amendment) Act<\/a>,
\n1955 (26 of 1955) which came into force on 1.1.1956, on a conviction for
\nan offence punishable with death, if the court sentenced the accused to
\nany punishment other than death, the reason why sentence of death was
\nnot passed had to be stated in the judgment.  After the amendment of
\nSection 367(5)<\/a> of the old Code by Act 26 of 1955, position is clear that
\nthe normal penalty is imprisonment for life. It can be awarded in the
\npresence of extenuating circumstances which reduce the gravity of the
\noffence.  The matter is left, after the amendment, to the discretion of
\nthe court. The court must, however, take into account all the
\ncircumstances, and state its reasons for whichever of the two sentences
\nit imposes in its discretion.  Therefore, the former rule that the
\nnormal punishment for murder is death is no longer operative and it is
\nnow within the discretion of the court to pass either of the two
\nsentences prescribed in this section; but whichever of the two sentences
\nhe passes, the Judge must give his reasons for imposing a particular
\nsentence.  The amendment of Section 367(5)<\/a> of the old Code does not
\naffect the law regulating punishment under IPC<\/a>.  This amendment relates
\nto procedure and now courts are no longer required to elaborate the
\nreasons for not awarding the death penalty; but they cannot depart from
\nsound judicial considerations preferring the lesser punishment.\n<\/p>\n
Section 354(3)<\/a> of the Code marks a significant shift in the
\nlegislative policy underlying the old Code as in force immediately
\nbefore 1.4.1974, according to which both the alternative sentences of
\ndeath or imprisonment for life provided for murder were normal
\nsentences.  Now, under Section 354(3)<\/a> of the Code the normal punishment
\nfor murder is imprisonment for life and death penalty is an exception.
\nThe court is required to state the reasons for the sentence awarded and
\nin the case of death sentence “special reasons” are required to be
\nstated, that is to say, only special facts and circumstances will
\nwarrant the passing of the death sentence. It is in the light of these
\nsuccessive legislative changes in the Code<\/a> that the judicial decisions
\nprior to the amendment made by Act 26 of 1955 and again Act 2 of 1974
\nhave to be understood.\n<\/p>\n
This Court in Ediga Anamma v. State of A.P<\/a>. (1974 (4) SCC 443) has
\nobserved : (SCC pp. 453-54, para 26)<\/p>\n
“26. Let us crystallize the positive
\nindicators against death sentence under Indian law
\ncurrently. Where the murderer is too young or too
\nold, the clemency or penal justice helps him. Where
\nthe offender suffers from socio-economic, psychic or
\npenal compulsions insufficient to attract a legal
\nexception or to downgrade the crime into a lesser
\none, judicial commutation is permissible. Other
\ngeneral social pressures, warranting judicial notice,
\nwith an extenuating impact may, in special cases,
\ninduce the lesser penalty.  Extraordinary features in
\nthe judicial process, such as that the death sentence
\nhas hung over the head of the culprit excruciatingly
\nlong, may persuade the court to be compassionate.
\nLikewise, if others involved in the crime and
\nsimilarly situated have received the benefit of life
\nimprisonment or if the offence is only constructive,
\nbeing under Section 302<\/a>, read with Section 149<\/a>, or
\nagain the accused has acted suddenly under another’s
\ninstigation, without premeditation, perhaps the court
\nmay humanely opt for life, even like where a just
\ncause or real suspicion of wifely infidelity pushed
\nthe criminal into the crime.  On the other hand, the
\nweapons used and the manner of their use, the
\nhorrendous features of the crime and hapless,
\nhelpless state of the victim, and the like, steel the
\nheart of the law for a sterner sentence.  We cannot
\nobviously feed into a judicial computer all such
\nsituations since they are astrological imponderables
\nin an imperfect and undulating society.  A legal
\npolicy on life or death cannot be left for ad hoc
\nmood or individual predilection and so we have sought
\nto objectify to the extent possible, abandoning
\nretributive ruthlessness, amending the deterrent
\ncreed and accenting the trend against the extreme and
\nirrevocable penalty of putting out of life.”\n<\/p>\n
In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab<\/a>  (1980 (2) SCC 684) it has been
\nobserved that: (SCC p. 751, para 209)<\/p>\n
“A real and abiding concern for the dignity of
\nhuman life postulates resistance to taking a life
\nthrough law’s instrumentality.  That ought not to be
\ndone save in the rarest of rare cases when the
\nalternative option is unquestionably foreclosed.”\n<\/p>\n
A balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to
\nbe drawn up and in doing so the mitigating circumstances have to be
\naccorded full weightage and a just balance has to be struck between the
\naggravating and the mitigating circumstances before the option is
\nexercised. In order to apply these guidelines, inter alia, the following
\nquestions may be asked and answered, (a) is there something uncommon
\nabout the crime which renders sentence of imprisonment for life
\ninadequate and calls for a death sentence?; and (b) are the
\ncircumstances of the crime such that there is no alternative but to
\nimpose death sentence even after according maximum weightage to the
\nmitigating circumstances which speak in favour of the offender?\n<\/p>\n
Another decision which illuminatingly deals with the question of
\ndeath sentence is Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab<\/a> (1983 (3) SCC 470).\n<\/p>\n
In Machhi Singh (supra) and Bachan Singh (supra) cases the
\nguidelines which are to be kept in view when considering the question
\nwhether the case belongs to the rarest of the rare category were
\nindicated.\n<\/p>\n
In Machhi Singh case (supra) it was observed: (SCC p. 489, para\n<\/p>\n
39)<\/p>\n
The following questions may be asked and answered as a test to
\ndetermine the “rarest of the rare” case in which death sentence can be
\ninflicted:-\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tIs there something uncommon about the crime which
\nrenders sentence of imprisonment for life inadequate and calls for
\na death sentence?\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tAre the circumstances of the crime such that there is
\nno alternative but to impose death sentence even after according
\nmaximum weightage to the mitigating circumstances which speak in
\nfavour of the offender?\n<\/p>\n
The following guidelines which emerge from Bachan Singh case
\n(supra) will have to be applied to the facts of each individual case
\nwhere the question of imposition of death sentence arises: (SCC p. 489,
\npara 38):-\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tThe extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted
\nexcept in gravest cases of extreme culpability.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tBefore opting for the death penalty the circumstances
\nof the `offender’ also require to be taken into consideration
\nalong with the circumstances of the `crime’.\n<\/p>\n
(iii) Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an
\nexception. Death sentence must be imposed only when life
\nimprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate punishment
\nhaving regard to the relevant circumstances of the crime, and
\nprovided, and only provided, the option to impose sentence of
\nimprisonment for life cannot be conscientiously exercised having
\nregard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and all the
\nrelevant circumstances.\n<\/p>\n
(iv) A balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating
\ncircumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so the mitigating
\ncircumstances have to be accorded full weightage and a just
\nbalance has to be struck between the aggravating and the
\nmitigating circumstances before the option is exercised.\n<\/p>\n
In rarest of rare cases when collective conscience of the
\ncommunity is so shocked that it will expect the holders of the judicial
\npower centre to inflict death penalty irrespective of their personal
\nopinion as regards desirability or otherwise of retaining death penalty,
\ndeath sentence can be awarded. The community may entertain such
\nsentiment in the following circumstances:\n<\/p>\n
(1)\tWhen the murder is committed in an extremely brutal,
\ngrotesque, diabolical, revolting or dastardly manner so as to
\narouse intense and extreme indignation of the community.
\n(2)\tWhen the murder is committed for a motive which evinces
\ntotal depravity and meanness; e.g. murder by hired assassin for
\nmoney or reward or a cold-blooded murder for gains of a person
\nvis-`-vis whom the murderer is in a dominating position or in a
\nposition of trust, or murder is committed in the course for
\nbetrayal of the motherland.\n<\/p>\n
(3)\tWhen murder of a member of a Scheduled Caste or minority
\ncommunity etc., is committed not for personal reasons but in
\ncircumstances which arouse social wrath, or in cases of ‘bride
\nburning’ or `dowry deaths’ or when murder is committed in order to
\nremarry for the sake of extracting dowry once again or to marry
\nanother woman on account of infatuation.\n<\/p>\n
(4)\tWhen the crime is enormous in proportion.  For instance when
\nmultiple murders, say of all or almost all the members of a family
\nor a large number of persons of a particular caste, community, or
\nlocality, are committed.\n<\/p>\n
(5)\tWhen the victim of murder is an innocent child, or a
\nhelpless woman or old or infirm person or a person vis-`-vis whom
\nthe murderer is in a dominating position or a public figure
\ngenerally loved and respected by the community.\n<\/p>\n
If upon taking an overall global view of all the circumstances in
\nthe light of the aforesaid propositions and taking into account the
\nanswers to the questions posed by way of the test for the rarest of rare
\ncases, the circumstances of the case are such that death sentence is
\nwarranted, the court would proceed to do so.\n<\/p>\n
A convict hovers between life and death when the question of
\ngravity of the offence and award of adequate sentence comes up for
\nconsideration.  Mankind has shifted from the state of nature towards a
\ncivilized society and it is no longer the physical opinion of the
\nmajority that takes away the liberty of a citizen by convicting him and
\nmaking him suffer a sentence of imprisonment.  Award of punishment
\nfollowing conviction at a trial in a system wedded to the rule of law is
\nthe outcome of cool deliberation in the court room after adequate
\nhearing is afforded to the parties, accusations are brought against the
\naccused, the prosecuted is given an opportunity of meeting the
\naccusations by establishing his innocence.  It is the outcome of cool
\ndeliberations and the screening of the material by the informed man i.e.
\nthe Judge that leads to determination of the lis.\n<\/p>\n
The principle of proportion between crime and punishment is a
\nprinciple of just desert that serves as the foundation of every criminal
\nsentence that is justifiable. As a principle of criminal justice it is
\nhardly less familiar or less important than the principle that only the
\nguilty ought to be punished.  Indeed, the requirement that punishment
\nnot be disproportionately great, which is a corollary of just desert, is
\ndictated by the same principle that does not allow punishment of the
\ninnocent, for any punishment in excess of what is deserved for the
\ncriminal conduct is punishment without guilt.\n<\/p>\n
The criminal law adheres in general to the principle of
\nproportionality in prescribing liability according to the culpability of
\neach kind of criminal conduct. It ordinarily allows some significant
\ndiscretion to the Judge in arriving at a sentence in each case,
\npresumably to permit sentences that reflect more subtle considerations
\nof culpability that are raised by the special facts of each case.
\nJudges in essence affirm that punishment ought always to fit the crime;
\nyet in practice sentences are determined largely by other
\nconsiderations. Sometimes it is the correctional needs of the
\nperpetrator that are offered to justify a sentence. Sometimes the
\ndesirability of keeping him out of circulation, and sometimes even the
\ntraffic results of his crime. Inevitably these considerations cause a
\ndeparture from just desert as the basis of punishment and create cases
\nof apparent injustice that are serious and widespread.\n<\/p>\n
\tProportion between crime and punishment is a goal respected in
\nprinciple, and in spite of errant notions, it remains a strong influence
\nin the determination of sentences. Anything less than a penalty of
\ngreatest severity for any serious crime is thought to be a measure of
\ntoleration that is unwarranted and unwise. But in fact quite apart from
\nthose considerations that make punishment unjustifiable when it is out
\nof proportion to the crime, uniformly disproportionate punishment has
\nsome very undesirable practical consequences.\n<\/p>\n
\tA bare look at the fact situation of this case shows that the
\nappellant was not possessed of the basic humanness and he completely
\nlacks the psyche or mind set which can be amenable for any reformation.
\nHe had at the time of occurrence a child of same age as the victim and
\nyet he diabolically designed in a most dastardly and revolting manner to
\nsacrifice a very hapless and helpless child of another for personal gain
\nand to promote his fortunes by pretending to appease the deity.  The
\nbrutality of the act is amplified by the grotesque and revolting manner
\nin which the helpless child’s head was severed. Even if the helpless and
\nimploring face and voice of the innocent child did not arouse any trace
\nof kindness in the heart of the accused, the non-challant way in which
\nhe carried the severed head in a gunny bag and threw it in the pond
\nunerringly shows that the act was diabolic of most superlative degree in
\nconception and cruel in execution. The tendency in the accused and for
\nthat matter in any one who entertains such revolting ideas cannot be
\nplaced on par with even an intention to kill some but really borders on
\na crime against humanity indicative of greatest depravity shocking the
\nconscience of not only any right thinking person but of the Courts of
\nlaw, as well. The socially abhorrent nature of the crime committed also
\nought not to be ignored in this case.  If this act is not revolting or
\ndastardly, it is beyond comprehension as to what other act can be so
\ndescribed is the question.  Superstition is a belief or notion, not
\nbased on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a
\nparticular thing or circumstance, occurrence or the like but mainly
\ntriggered by thoughts of self aggrandizement and barbaric at times as in
\nthe present case. Superstition cannot and does not provide justification
\nfor any killing, much less a planned and deliberate one.  No amount of
\nsuperstitious colour can wash away the sin and offence of an unprovoked
\nkilling, more so in the case of an innocent and defenceless child.\n<\/p>\n
\tCriminal propensities of the accused are clearly spelt out from
\nthe fact that similar accusations involving human sacrifice existed at
\nthe time of trial. Though the result could not be brought on record, yet
\nthe fact that similar accusation was made against the accused-appellant
\nfor which he was facing trial cannot also be lost sight of.  In view of
\nthe above position, we do not think this to be a fit case where any
\ninterference is called for, looking to the background facts highlighted
\nabove. This in our view is an illustrative and most exemplary case to be
\ntreated as the ‘rarest of rare cases’ in which death sentence is and
\nshould be the rule, with no exception whatsoever.  Appeal fails and is
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe record our appreciation for the fair presentation and
\nassistance rendered by Mr. Anil Kumar Mittal, learned amicus curiae and
\nMr. A.T.M. Rangaramanujam, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-
\nState who very ably highlighted the legal principles revolving round the
\nquestion of death sentence.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sushil Murmu vs State Of Jharkhand on 12 December, 2003 Author: J Arijit Pasayat Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, Arijit Pasayat. CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 947 of 2003 PETITIONER: Sushil Murmu RESPONDENT: State of Jharkhand DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/12\/2003 BENCH: DORAISWAMY RAJU & ARIJIT PASAYAT. JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-265990","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSushil Murmu vs State Of Jharkhand on 12 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushil-murmu-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-12-december-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sushil Murmu vs State Of Jharkhand on 12 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushil-murmu-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-12-december-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-23T13:03:18+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sushil-murmu-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-12-december-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sushil-murmu-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-12-december-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sushil Murmu vs State Of Jharkhand on 12 December, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-23T13:03:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sushil-murmu-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-12-december-2003\"},\"wordCount\":3586,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sushil-murmu-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-12-december-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sushil-murmu-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-12-december-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sushil-murmu-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-12-december-2003\",\"name\":\"Sushil Murmu vs State Of Jharkhand on 12 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-23T13:03:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sushil-murmu-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-12-december-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sushil-murmu-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-12-december-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sushil-murmu-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-12-december-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sushil Murmu vs State Of Jharkhand on 12 December, 2003\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sushil Murmu vs State Of Jharkhand on 12 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushil-murmu-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-12-december-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sushil Murmu vs State Of Jharkhand on 12 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushil-murmu-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-12-december-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-23T13:03:18+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushil-murmu-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-12-december-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushil-murmu-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-12-december-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sushil Murmu vs State Of Jharkhand on 12 December, 2003","datePublished":"2003-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-23T13:03:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushil-murmu-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-12-december-2003"},"wordCount":3586,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushil-murmu-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-12-december-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushil-murmu-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-12-december-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushil-murmu-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-12-december-2003","name":"Sushil Murmu vs State Of Jharkhand on 12 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-23T13:03:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushil-murmu-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-12-december-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushil-murmu-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-12-december-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushil-murmu-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-12-december-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sushil Murmu vs State Of Jharkhand on 12 December, 2003"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/265990","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=265990"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/265990\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=265990"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=265990"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=265990"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}