( 2025:JHHC:18245-DB ) Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 439 of 2014 … Against the Judgment of Conviction and Order of sentence dated 13.03.2014 passed by the learned District & Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Ghatsila in Sessions Trial Case No. 259 of 2011. … Subha Munda @ Khedi Munda @ Chandna D/o Binod Munda, resident of village-Majubera, P.S. Belpahari, District-Pachim Midnapur (W.B.) … … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent … P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH For the Appellant : Mr. Amit Kumar Verma, Advocate : Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P. … CAV ORDER Dated 1.07.2025 … Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Verma & Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, learned Counsels for the appellant and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl. P.P. 2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order of Conviction and Sentence dated 13.03.2014 passed by Shri Barun Kumar Mishra, learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Ghatsila in S.T. No. 259/2011 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 302/149,148,307/149,353/149,324/149,147 of the Indian Penal Code and Section ¾ of Explosive Substance Act, and 17 C.L.A. Act and Section 25 (1- b)a/26/27/35 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with hard labour and fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 302/149 I.P.C. and for non-payment of the fine amount to 2 undergo further simple imprisonment for six months; rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 148 of I.P.C.; rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 307/149 I.P.C. and for non-payment of fine amount to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months; three years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 353/149 I.P.C.; rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 324/149 I.P.C.; rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 3 and 4 of Explosive Substance Act and fine of Rs.2,000/- for each of the offences and for non-payment of the fine amount would entail additional simple imprisonment for six months each; rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 17 C.L.A. Act; rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs. 2000/- for the offence under Section 25(1-a)/35 and 25 (1-b) of the Arms Act and non-payment of the fine amount would lead to additional simple imprisonment for six months; rigorous imprisonment for 7 years each for the offence under Section 26/35 and 27/35 of the Arms Act along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and non- payment of fine would lead to additional simple imprisonment for each of the sections. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbayan of Indubhushan Kumar recorded on 19.11.2009 in which it has been stated that on the same day at 2 p.m. the informant and the other police personnel were returning to Gurabanda in an anti-land mine vehicle. When at around 02:25 p.m. as the vehicle had crossed a pool constructed over Bhakhar Canal a huge explosion occurred and the anti-land mine vehicle went up in the air and dashed with a tree considerably damaging the vehicle. All the passengers in the vehicle received injuries on account of the vehicle getting disbalanced due to the blast. 3 The informant realized that the land mines were planted by the extremist organization MCC. Before the informant and the police force could regain composure firing started from three sides and the police force were directed to surrender by the extremists. One person was taking the name of other extremists and directing them to fire and snatch the firearms from the police personnel. The informant and the police force started making retaliatory firing upon the extremists due to which the extremists could not approach the land mine vehicle. In the meantime, the informant searched out his mobile and informed the Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur, S.D.P.O., Ghatsila about the incident with request to send reinforcements. Immediately reinforcement arrived at which the extremists started fleeing away. A search was made in the nearby areas and various incriminating articles were recovered. The injured were sent to the Hospital and at 10:00 p.m. the informant came to know that Sub-Inspector Ramjatan Baitha had succumbed to his injuries. Based on the aforesaid allegations Gurabanda P.S. Case No.16 of 2009 was instituted. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the court of sessions where it was registered as S.T. No. 259 of 2011. Charge was framed against the accused under Sections 147, 148, 353, 307, 324, 302/149 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Explosive Substance Act, and 17 C.L.A. and Section 25 (1-b) a/ 26/27/35 Arms Act which were read over and explained to the accused to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses in support of its case. 5. P.W.1 Megh Rai Hansda did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile by the prosecution. 4 6. P.W.2 Sanatan Manjhi has stated that on 19.11.2009 at 02:25 p.m. he and the other police personnel were returning to Gurabanda Police Station from Shyamsunderpur Police Station and as soon as they reached near Bhakhar Canal, there was a land mine blast as a result of which they became injured. They had also fired at the extremists by way of retaliation. Sub- Inspector of Police Ramjatan Baitha died due to the land mine blast. The extremists were taking the name of Kanu, Phutu and Phogra directing them to kill the police party. There was firing from both sides after which the extremists had fled away. His treatment was done at T.M.H. In cross-examination he had deposed that order was being given to Phogra, Kanu, Varun and Sobha to resort to firing. He had seen some women amongst the extremists. He had seen Sobha Munda on the date of occurrence. He was called for the Test Identification Parade but he could not attend due to his serious condition as he was on bed rest for six months. 7. P.W.3 Nand Kishore Mahto has stated that on 19.11.2009 at 02-02:30 p.m. he and the police force had come to Shyamsunderpur P.S. and were returning to Gurabanda P.S. on an anti-land mine vehicle. As soon as the vehicle approached the canal, a land mine blast took place which threw up the vehicle in the air and the extremists had thereafter started firing. Several police personnel were injured. The extremists were taking the name of Kanu, Phutu and were goading them to snatch the arms from the police personnel. Some of the police personnels started making counter firing. The extremists consisted of both males and females. All the injured were taken to the Hospital. In the Test Identification Parade he had identified Rakho Haridas and Kajal as the extremists who were firing. He was treated at T.M.H. and thereafter referred to Ranchi. 5 In cross-examination he had deposed that other accused persons were also present in the Test Identification Parade. In the Test Identification Parade he had identified two accused persons. 8. P.W.4 Rajendra Kumar Dubey was posted as an Officer-in-Charge of Gurabanda P.S. and he had taken over investigation of Gurabanda P.S. Case No. 16 of 2009 from the earlier Investigating Officer. He had recorded the statements of constable Bhushan Nayak, Chhabi Lal Mahto and Hari Shankar Mahto. On 08.02.2010 he had recorded the confessional statement of Sukhendu Munda @ Ranjeet @ Bablu. He had received the injury reports of Jitendra Thakur, Sanatan Manjhi, Nand Kishore Mahto, Siman Lugun and Parmanand from T.M.H. On 21.12.2010 he had recorded the confessional statement of Varun Munda @ Suresh. On 18.12.2010 Shobha Munda was arrested in this case and her confessional statement was recorded by him. The T.I.P. was held and he had received the T.I. chart from which it appears that the informant had identified Sukhendu Munda. Another T.I.P. was held in which the informant had identified Shobha Munda and Varun Munda as the extremists who were proceeding towards the damaged anti-land mines vehicle with .303 rifle in their possession. He had submitted supplementary charge- sheet against Shobha Munda and Varun Munda. In cross-examination he had deposed that Chhabi Lal Mahto in his statement had taken the name of Shobha Munda. 9. P.W.5 Rajendra Bhaduri did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile by the prosecution. 10. P.W.6 Dr. Lalan Choudhary was posted as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Forensic Medicine MGM Medical College, Jamshedpur 6 and on 20.11.2009 he had conducted autopsy on the dead-body of Ram Jatan Baitha and had found the following injuries: Biddle prick right side of neck, right cubital region, Lacerated wound 2 cm. x 0.25 cm. Muscle deep over right occipital scalp- Abrasion 3 cm. x 2.5 cm. over klright left leg in front. 2 cm. x 1 cm. over middle aspect of lower part of right leg. 1.5 cm. x 2 cm, 5 cm. x 2 cm. over right hand Darsal Aspect 8 cm. x 3 cm. over outer and middle part of thigh 1 cm. x 1 cm. over, Lumber region, 5 cm. x 5 cm. over right Ankle, Bruise 9 cm. x 3 cm. over right leg front. On dissection right side of occipital scalp contused 7 cm. x 6 cm. Whole Brain contused, Anterior chest wall contused all ribs fractured, left lung contused, right lung dry. Vicera pale, gall bladder empty stomach contain semi digested food, death caused of death head injury all above injury except A are caused by hard and blunt substance object (blast) time since death between 12 hours to 18 hours approximately. The cause of death was opined to be due to head injury. He has proved the postmortem report which has been marked as Ext.1 11. P.W.7 Brahmdeo Prasad Yadav has stated that on 19.11.2009 while he and the other police personnel were returning to Gurabanda P.S. at 1:30 p.m. on an anti-land mine vehicle near the canal a blast had taken place which damaged the vehicle and injured the police personnel. The extremists were urging them to surrender otherwise they would be killed. There was firing from both the sides. He was treated in the Hospital for his injuries. In cross-examination he had deposed that he does not have any knowledge about the incident. His statement was not recorded by the police. 12. P.W.8 Indubhushan Kumar is the informant who had stated that on 19.11.2009 at 2:25 p.m. he and the other police personnel were going on an anti-land mine vehicle to Gurabanda P.S. where after crossing the canal over Bhakhar river a land mine blast had taken place due to which the vehicle got severely damaged. There was a continuous firing from outside by the extremists who were taking the name of each other. He had called the Superintendent of Police after which reinforcements arrived and the injured 7 were sent to the Hospital in Ambulance. He has proved the formal F.I.R. which has been marked as Ext.2. 13. P.W.9 Dr. Jayant Kumar Layak was posted in the Department of Orthopedic in Tata Main Hospital and on 19.11.2009 he had examined Jitendra Thakur and had found the following: i. Contusion pelvic area, X-ray, fracture lumber vertebra grievous injury. ii. Contusion right lower leg simple injury. On the same day he had examined Sanatan Majhi and had found the following: Dorsal area, D.V. fracture grievous injury. He had also examined Nand Kishore Mahto and had found the following: Right side Pelvic region fracture L II vertebra grievous injury. He had examined Simon Lugun and had found the following: Contusion right shoulder, pelvic area on X-ray fracture grievous injury. Left knee and leg simple injury. On the same day, he had examined Parmanand Mahto and had found the following Injury right side chest simple contusion right side of chest, contusion in spine regions. He has proved the writing of Dr. Dhiraj Kumar and the signature of Dr. O.P. Patra in the injury reports which have been marked as Ext. 8, 8/I, 8/II, 8/III, 8/IV. He has proved his comment in the injury reports which have been marked as Ext.9 to 9/IV. 14. P.W.10 Rajesh Kumar was posted as Sub-Inspector of Police in Gurabanda P.S. He has proved the F.I.R. which has been marked as Ext.5. The 8 seizure list has been proved and marked as Ext.6. He had inspected the place of occurrence which is a bridge between Bhakhar and Singhpura constructed over a canal. He has proved the inquest report which has been marked as Ext.7. He had recorded the restatement of the informant and the statements of other witnesses. He had conducted the Test Identification Parade of the accused. Nand Kishore Mahto had identified Rakho Hari Das, Kajal Parmanik and Rizwan Ansari while Narpat Singh had identified Rizwan Ansari. He has proved the Test Identification Chart which have been marked as Ext.9 and 9(I) respectively with objection. The sanction orders obtained from the D.C. Office have been marked as Ext.10, 10 (I) and 10 (II). He had submitted charge-sheet against Rakho Hari Das, Kajal Parmanik and Rizwan Ansari keeping the investigation pending against the rest accused persons. In cross-examination he has deposed that he was not present when the T.I.P. was conducted. 15. P.W.11 Kamal Nath Munda has produced the seized articles of Gurabanda P.S. Case No. 16 of 2009 which includes pistol, magazine, live cartridges and empty cartridges. He has proved the signature of Investigating Officer on the magazine marked B/I which have been marked as Ext. X and X(I). The seizure list of four live cartridges have been proved and marked as Ext. Y to Y/XIII. Three empty cartridges have been marked as Ext.2 to 2 (I) & (II). 16. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which she had denied her complicity in the commission of the offence. 17. Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is not named in the F.I.R. None of the witnesses have stated about the appellant being involved in firing at the police party. It has further 9 been submitted that P.W.4 who had conducted part investigation has stated about the appellant being identified by P.W.8 in the T.I.P. as an extremist who was approaching the damaged anti-land mine vehicle with a rifle but no such T.I. chart has been exhibited and even P.W.8 has not whispered about such identification. 18. Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl. P.P. has submitted that the appellant was identified in the dock as one of the extremists and several of the witnesses have identified her as one of the persons actively participating in order to eliminate the police force itself. 19. We have heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the trial court records. 20. The land mine blast which damaged the anti-land mine vehicle created absolute mayhem as the extremists started indiscriminate firing at the police force who were trapped inside the vehicle. Retaliation, in spite of heavy odds was resorted to by way of firing at the extremists and with the arrival of reinforcements the extremists had fled away. P.W.2 had taken the name of the appellant to the extent that the extremists were calling each other by name and he had heard the name of the appellant being taken. Such evidence cannot be an instrument of substance to come to a definite conclusion about the presence of the appellant with the extremists. The other witness is P.W.4 who is a part Investigating Officer who has stated that P.W.8 had identified the appellant in the Test Identification Parade and she was attributed to have made an approach to the damaged anti-land mine vehicle with a rifle. Such evidence of P.W.4 is discarded for the reasons that (a) P.W.8 in his evidence has not even whispered of having participated in the Test Identification Parade and (b) the T.I.P. chart which has been referred by P.W.4 has not been exhibited. In fact, a cloud of 10 mist hovers over the fact as to whether a Test Identification Parade was ever held or not so far as the appellant is concerned. A T.I.P. has its own importance as it enables a witness to identify a suspect seen during a crime. It acts as an instrument of corroboration to the eye-witness account. This process should have been adopted by the Investigating Officer during the investigation after following the procedural necessities but having not resorted to the same the identification of the appellant in the dock cannot be a reliable piece of evidence more so when the appellant has regularly been produced in the court. This of course could have been a corroborative piece of evidence had there been other reliable evidence to link the appellant with the murderous assault committed upon the police party. Absence of any evidence does render the case of the prosecution doubtful so far as the appellant is concerned. 21. We, therefore, on the basis of the discussions made here-in-above set aside the Judgment and Order of Conviction and Sentence dated 13.03.2014 passed by Shri Barun Kumar Mishra, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ghatsila in S.T. No. 259 of 2011. 22. This appeal is allowed. 23.. Since the appellant is in custody, she is directed to be released immediately and forthwith if not wanted in any other case. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) (Ambuj Nath, J) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 01.07.2025 P.K.S./N.A.F.R.