'Affront To Judiciary': Jharkhand High Court Upholds Conviction In Dhanbad Judge Uttam Anand Murder Case
The Jharkhand High Court has upheld the conviction of two men for the murder of Dhanbad Additional District and Sessions Judge Uttam Anand, observing that the enormity of the act and the audacious manner of its execution constituted an “affront to the judiciary” and raised serious concerns over the safety of judicial officers. A Division Bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and...
The Jharkhand High Court has upheld the conviction of two men for the murder of Dhanbad Additional District and Sessions Judge Uttam Anand, observing that the enormity of the act and the audacious manner of its execution constituted an “affront to the judiciary” and raised serious concerns over the safety of judicial officers.
A Division Bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava was hearing an appeal against the judgment convicting the appellants under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life without remission or commutation till their last breath, along with a fine of ₹20,000 for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC.
The prosecution case arose from a written report submitted by the deceased judge's wife, Kritee Sinha. She stated that on July 28, 2021, Uttam Anand had gone out for his morning walk at around 5 AM but did not return. A search was undertaken, during which it emerged that local residents had taken him in an injured condition to Shaheed Nirmal Mahto Medical College and Hospital. A video circulating on mobile phones allegedly showed an auto-rickshaw deliberately colliding with him, resulting in his death.
Considering the gravity of the offence, the Jharkhand Government transferred the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation. During trial, the prosecution examined 58 witnesses.
Examining the circumstances surrounding the incident, the High Court noted that the impact of the auto-rickshaw caused a massive brain haemorrhage, leaving the judge unconscious and bleeding by the roadside. The Court recorded that while some joggers and passers-by failed to assist him, one witness took him to the hospital. An Auxiliary Nurse Midwife returning from duty also helped clear the blood from his mouth and nose to ease his breathing. Despite treatment and life-saving measures, he could not be saved.
The Court placed considerable reliance on the testimony of the sole eyewitness to the collision. The witness stated that he saw the auto-rickshaw deliberately veer towards the left and strike the judge. The Bench also noted that the vehicle did not have a rear number plate and was subsequently found to have been stolen from its owner.
The High Court further observed that CCTV footage collected from different sources constituted a dominant feature of the prosecution case. The footage showed the auto-rickshaw turning at Randhir Verma Chowk, striking the deceased and continuing normally. One of the appellants later got out of the vehicle and took another auto-rickshaw travelling in the opposite direction. The Court held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that both appellants were present in the offending vehicle.
On whether the collision was deliberate, the Bench observed that the footage showed the auto-rickshaw suddenly veering towards the deceased. After the impact, the appellants continued driving in a “dispassionate manner” without even accelerating, which would ordinarily have been expected had the collision been accidental. Thus, the High Court held that the entire sequence indicated a premeditated act beginning with the theft of the auto-rickshaw.
The appellant who was driving the vehicle claimed that a stone had obstructed its wheel, causing it to veer towards the deceased. The Court rejected this defence as unsupported by any evidence. It noted that the scene had been inspected repeatedly by the police and CBI officials, but no stone had surfaced during the investigation. The forensic experts who analysed the CCTV footage had also not supported this version.
The Bench held that the evidence satisfied the requirements of Section 300 “Thirdly” of the IPC. It also rejected the contention that the absence of motive weakened the prosecution case, observing:
“Another issue which has been flagged by the learned counsel for the appellants is the absence of motive. The said contention does not hold good simply for the reason that motive will be compelled to take a back seat when faced with a deluge of direct evidence as in the present case.”
The Court further upheld the invocation of Section 34 IPC. It noted that while appellant no. 1 had actively driven the vehicle towards Uttam Anand, the role of appellant no. 2 in acting in concert with him could not be discounted. Dismissing the appeal, the Court observed:
“The enormity of the act of the appellants and the audacious nature of its execution has been an affront to the judiciary encapsulating serious concerns over the safety and security of the Judicial Officers. As we have discussed and observed above, based on the voluminous records of the case, the complicity and culpability of the appellants is palpable.”
Finding no reason to arrive at a different conclusion from the trial court, the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence.
Case Title: Lakhan Kumar Verma @ Lakhan Verma and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1578 of 2022.
Appearance: Mr. Sabyasanchi for the Appellants. Mr. Prashant Pallav for the CBI.