Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13022 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 114 of 2009 --------- Sambhu Kewat, son of Dhaneshwar Kewat, Resident of Kapali Basti, of Old Sonari, Jamshedpur, P.O. and P.S. Sonari, Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum ..… Appellant Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Vickey Bahadur, Son of Krishna Bahadur, R/o Sonari, P.O. & P.S. Sonari, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur ….. Respondents ---------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ---------- For the Appellant : Mr.D.K. Karmakar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, A.P.P. For the Resp. No.2 : Ms. Vinita Prakash, Advocate J.C. to Arvind Kr. Chowdhary, Adv. --------- JUDGMENT Reserved on 02.05.2024 Pronounced on 26.03.2025 This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the judgment of conviction dated 23.04.2008 and sentence dated 24.04.2008, passed in Sessions Trial No. 469 of 2005 (Arising out of G.R. Case No. 1262 of 2005, corresponding to Sonari P.S. Case No. 55 of 2005) by Shri Raghubar Dayal, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. III, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum, by which the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 326 of the I.P.C. with an observation that ingredients of Section 307 of the I.P.C. is not attracted in the facts Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13022 ) 2 and circumstances of the case and sentenced the appellant to undergo R.I. for a period of Five (05) years and to pay a fine amount of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the appellant is further directed to undergo R.I. for Six (06) months 2. Prosecution case in brief is that on 20.06.2005, at around 11 p.m. in the night while the Informant Vicky Bahadur was returning to his resident from the house of his Uncle, then on the way the appellant, Sambhu Kewat stopped him and started abusing him and on protest the appellant started assaulting him by Astura due to which the Informant suffered grievous injury on the left side of his neck and blood had started oozing out. Thereafter, he was referred to T.M.H., where he was treated. 3. On the basis of Fardbayan of the Informant, Vicky Bahadur on 21.06.2005, the Police instituted Sonari P.S. Case No. 55 of 2005, for the offence under Section 324/307 I.P.C. against the appellant, namely Sambhu Kewat. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Informant-O.P. No.2. 5. It is submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction dated 23.04.2008 and sentence dated 24.04.2008 passed by the learned Trial Court is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has committed grave illegality by passing the Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13022 ) 3 impugned judgment and sentence when no case is made out under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant has been convicted under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to take into consideration that initially charge was framed only under Section 307 of I.P.C. and it was not a case of 326 I.P.C. and First Information Report was lodged under Sections 307 and 324 of Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that learned Trial Court has completely failed to apply its mind while passing the impugned judgment and sentence and which was decided on wrong finding. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to take into consideration that there is no eye witness except the Informant in this case. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to take into consideration that the Informant had not stated anything regarding the size of the knife and he also stated during his cross examination that when the appellant was giving repeated blow, then he caught hold of the hand of the appellant, but on perusal of doctor’s report, it is clear that there is only one wound on the neck of the Informant. It is submitted that the Court below has failed to take into consideration that no motive has been proved by the informant of the alleged assault. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13022 ) 4 It is submitted that the Trial Court has failed to take into consideration that as per P.W.2, i.e. the Investigating Officer, he inspected the place of occurrence and which is Kapali Basti Chowk. There is a Shitla Mandir, Tea Stall and it is a highly populated area, but there is no eye witness in this case. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to take into consideration that P.W.5 Banti Sharma was standing outside his shop at the time of alleged occurrence but he did not identify the present appellant. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to take into consideration that as per the statement of the Informant the occurrence took place at about 11 p.m., but no source of light has been disclosed and as to how the Informant identified the present appellant. It is submitted that there is material contradiction of evidence in between the prosecution witnesses. It is submitted that the investigation of the case has been done in a most perfunctory manner. It is submitted that there is a long protracted trial, hence the appellant may be given the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders’ Act and hence, the appeal may be allowed. 6. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State, has submitted that the appellant has been named in the F.I.R. and the Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13022 ) 5 allegation against him is of trying to commit murder of the Informant, however, the learned Trial Court has taken a lenient view by convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. instead of 307 I.P.C. It is submitted that the Informant, namely Vicky Bahadur has been examined as P.W.3 of this case, who has fully supported his case and has stood the test of cross-examination. It is submitted that the evidence of P.W.3, namely Vicky Bahadur, i.e. the Informant is corroborated by the evidence of Dr. S.S. Singh, i.e. P.W.1, who had examined the Injured-Informant and has found grievous injury on the neck of the Informant. It is submitted that P.W.4 is Dr. D.K. Bhattmishra, who had also examined the Informant and had found injury on the person of the Informant. It is submitted that P.W.2 and P.W.6, namely Juwel Marandi and Dhananjay Kumar Srivastava respectively are part Investigating Officers of the case and who had also supported and corroborated the prosecution case and thus, the learned Trial Court has not committed any illegality by convicting and sentencing the appellant, hence, the appeal may be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2, after adopting the argument of the learned A.P.P. on behalf of the State, has submitted that the impugned Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13022 ) 6 judgment of conviction and sentence is fit and proper and requires no interference from this Court. It is submitted that the appellant had tried to kill the Informant-O.P.No.2 by assaulting him by Astura and had inflicted grievous injury on the neck of the Informant but the Informant survived anyhow. It is submitted that the Dr. S.S.Singh, i.e. P.W.1, had opined that the nature of injury is grievous and has proved the Injury reports, marked as Ext.1 and Ext.1/1. It is submitted that the evidence of P.W.1, i.e. Dr. S.S. Singh is further supported and corroborated from the evidence of P.W.4, namely Dr.D.K. Bhattamishra, who had also treated the injured-Informant at the T.M.H., Jamshedpur and had found grievous injury on the person of the Informant. It is submitted that the P.W.3 and P.W.6, namely Juwel Marandi and Dhananjay Kr. Srivastava respectively are the Investigating Officers, who had also supported and corroborated the prosecution case. Thus, there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court, hence, this Criminal Appeal may be dismissed. 8. Perused the Lower Court Record of this case and considered the submission of both the sides. 9. It transpires that the Informant had lodged F.I.R. on 21.06.2005 against the appellant Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13022 ) 7 under Section 324/307 I.P.C. for the occurrence which took place on 20.06.2005. 10. It transpires that the Police, after investigation, submitted chargesheet against the appellant on 29.08.2005 Under Section 324/307 I.P.C. before the C.J.M., Jamshedpur. 11. Thereafter, the C.J.M., Jamshedpur had taken cognizance against the Appellant on 29.08.2005 under Section 324/307 of I.P.C. 12. Thereafter, after supplying the police papers to the Appellant, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 13. The Charges were framed against the appellant by Shri Raghubar Dayal, then Addl. Sessions Judge-F.T.C.-III, Jamshedpur for the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. on 03.03.2006, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 14. During trial the prosecution got examined Six (06) witnesses, who are as follows:- (i) P.W.1 is Dr. S.S.Singh, who proved the Injury Reports as Ext.1 and Ext.1/1, (ii)P.W.2 is Juwel Marandi, i.e. the part Investigating Officer, (iii)P.W.3 is Vicky Bahadur, i.e. the Informant, (iv)P.W.4 is Dr.D.K. Bhattamishra, who examined the Injured Informant, (v) P.W.5 is Banti Sharma and (vi)P.W.6 is Dhananjay Kr. Srivastava Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13022 ) 8 15. The prosecution, in support of its case, has got marked certain documents, which are as follows:- (i) Ext. 1 and Ext.1/1 are the injury reports, (ii)Ext. 2 is the fardbayan, (iii)Ext. 2/1 is the endorsement of Juwel Marandi on the fardbayan, (iv)Ext.2/2 is the signature of the Informant on F.I.R. (v)Ext 2/3 is signature of Banti Sharma on F.I.R. and (vi)Ext.3 is the Formal F.I.R. 16. Thereafter, the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 09.4.2008 and to which he denied the circumstances put forth before him. 17. Neither any defence witness was examined nor any document was marked as the Exhibit on behalf of the defence. 18. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. after acquitting him for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for Five (05) years and to pay the fine of Rs.5,000/-. Hence, this Court has to consider as to whether the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court is correct or not. 19. So far as evidence of prosecution witnesses is concerned, P.W.1 is Dr.S.S. Singh and he stated during his examination-in-chief that on 20.06.2005, Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13022 ) 9 Dr.D.K. Bhattamishra (i.e. P.W.4) had prepared the injury report of Vicky Bahadur, i.e. the Informant in his pen and signature, which is marked at Ext.1. He further stated that he had given his opinion that Incised wound on the left side of neck-3” X 2” X Muscle deep with cut external jugular vein left side and he opined that nature of injury is dangerous, grievous. Such type of injury, if left unattended, may lead to the death of the patient. This opinion is recorded in his pen and signature, which is in carbon copy and which is marked as Ext.1/1. 20. During cross-examination, he had stated that he had not given the age of injury and he had not given report as to the weapon of the injury. He further stated that he had mentioned the nature of injury as dangerous which is mentioned in Medical Jurisprudence, written by Parikh. He based his opinion on Reddy’s Text book, Parikh’s Text Book, namely Forensic Medicine and Toxicology. 21. However, he disagreed to the suggestion that the word ‘dangerous’ is extraneous. He further stated that the injured was admitted to T.M.H. As per the injury reported in Ext.1 and Ext.1/1, he has opined that the injury sustained by the Informant is grievous in nature. 22. Thus, it would appear that the P.W.1, namely Dr.S.S.Singh has supported the injury on the person of the Injured-Informant, but he had not examined the Informant and had only given his opinion. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13022 ) 10 23. P.W.4 is Dr. D.K. Bhattamishra, who had stated during examination-in-chief, that he examined the Informant on 20.06.2005, who was brought by Banti Sharma (i.e. P.W.5) and found following injuries on the person of the Injured Informant:- “Cut wound on left side of neck size 3” X 2” X 1”. Alleged case of assault by sharp weapon Age of injury-within six to eight hours. Red in colour Nature of injury-opinion reserved. Patient was admitted to 2 ‘A’ Ward T.M.H. for further treatment.” He further stated that the injury report was prepared by him and had his signature which had already been marked as Ext.-1. 24. During his cross-examination, he stated that he did not know Banty Sharma prior to that day. He further stated that he had based his opinion regarding age of injury and colour of injury and freshness. He further stated that he had not mentioned freshness and other factors. He further stated that there was no swelling. He further stated that he did not know as to when the patient was discharged. 25. P.W.3 is Vicky Bahadur, i.e. the informant and he stated during evidence that the occurrence took place at 20.06.2005, at around 11- 11.30 P.M. in the night and while he was returning from the house of his uncle and when he arrived at Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13022 ) 11 Kapali Basti Chowk, then there he met Sambhu Kewat, i.e. the appellant and who asked him, i.e. the appellant as to what the appellant was doing there, then he stated before him that he is returning from the house of his uncle. Thereafter, an altercation took place and the appellant Sambhu Kewat inflicted blow on his neck by Astura, due to which he sustained cut injury in his neck and then he ran to the P.C.O. of one Banti Sharma (i.e. P.W.5) and thereafter, said Banti Sharma took him to T.M.H. and where he was treated. Thereafter, his statement was recorded by the police and he put his signature on his Fardbayan which has been marked as Ext.2/2 and he also proved the signature of Banti Sharma, marked as Ext.2/3. 26. During cross-examination, he stated that prior to the occurrence he had gone to the house of his Uncle Mithu Bahadur, who used to do work of painting and stayed there for around 2-3 hours and had met his uncle and his family members. The distance of his house and the house of his uncle is of 10/15 minutes. 27. He further stated that prior to the occurrence there was no quarrel with the accused- appellant. Even prior to the occurrence he had met him for about 5/6 times and he had met with Sambhu Kewat with other people but he is not aware of names of those people. 28. He denied to have acquaintance with any girl in the Basti, where his uncle lived. He used to visit Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13022 ) 12 the house of his uncle regularly and there is house of one Vishal near the house of his uncle and there are house of 4-5 other persons. He further admitted that there were friends of appellant Sambhu Kewat at the time of occurrence, but he is not aware of their names, but he used to see them regularly, however, he had not disclosed about those people before the Police. He further stated that he had not described the size of Astura, with which appellant Sambhu Kewat had assaulted him, before the Police. Altercation took place for around 10/15 minutes and there was a Basti. However, none had arrived from the Basti. Initially, he had not raised protest when he was assaulted by Astura, but when second time Sambhu Kewat tried to assault him by Astura, then he stopped the same and he had caught hold of the hands of Sambhu Kewat and thereafter, he had never seen the said Astura. He denied the suggestion for falsely implicating the appellant Sambhu Kewat and he is not aware of the motive of the occurrence. The evidence of P.W.3, i.e. Vicky Bahadur, shall be considered after the evidence of other prosecution witnesses. 29. P.W.5 is one Banti Sharma, who was doing business of C.D. Parlour and S.T.D. Booth. During evidence he stated that around 10/10.30 p.m. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13022 ) 13 at night, in the year 2005, while he was standing in front of his shop, then Vicky Bahadur, i.e. the Informant arrived near his shop and he saw that his clothes were full of blood and Vicky Bahadur informed him that Sambhu Kewat, i.e. the appellant had assaulted him by Astura near Kapali Bhatta. Thereafter, he took Vicky Bahadur to T.M.H. by his vehicle and where the injured was treated. 30. During cross-examination, he stated that he learnt from the Informant Vicky Bahadur that while he was returning from the house of his uncle, then he was assaulted near Kapali Basti by the appellant Sambhu Kewat. He further stated that his shop is situated at a distance of approximately 300 metre from the Chowk and there is police O.P. between the two Chowk (i.e. Kapali Chowk) and which is closed and where no constable resided and the police remained near Bhawnath Temple. However, he had not been informed by the Informant Vicky Bahadur that prior to arriving near his shop, the Informant had met any person or not and he was not aware of motive of assault upon the Informant. The Police had not asked his vehicle number, hence he had not disclosed to them. However, his name was recorded as the “Reference” in T.M.H. Register. He had given money to the T.M.H. at the time of admission and he had handed over a receipt to the Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13022 ) 14 mother of Vicky, i.e. the Informant. He also remained in hospital for the whole night and on the third day the Informant-Vicky Bahadur was discharged from the hospital. He had denied the suggestion for giving false evidence as being a friend of the Informant Vicky Bahadur. 31. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.5, namely Banti Sharma it would appear that he had taken the injured Informant Vicky Bahadur to T.M.H. as he had seen him in a pool of blood having blood stained clothes and that his name was recorded as Reference in the Register of T.M.H. Register. However, during cross-examination, he stated to have learnt the name of the appellant Sambhu Kewat from the informant for assaulting him. However, he had not stated that Sambhu Kewat, along with other persons, were present when the occurrence had taken place and Vicky Bahadur had not disclosed to him regarding the presence of Sambhu Kewat along with other persons at the time of occurrence. There appears to be some contradiction at the time of occurrence as the informant had stated that the occurrence took place at around 11-11.30 P.M. in the night, whereas P.W.5, i.e. Banti Sharma had stated that the occurrence took place at around 10- 10.30 p.m. in the night. However, P.W.5 has supported the prosecution case, but he is a hearsay witness. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13022 ) 15 32. P.W.2 is Juwel Marandi, who is the first I.O. of the case and who stated during his evidence that on 20.06.2005, while he was posted as S.I. in Sonari P.S., then he was handed over the investigation of this case. The Fardbayan of this case was recorded by one Sudhir Kumar, J.S.I. and he had proved the Fardbayan, marked as Ext. 2. He further proved the endorsement of the Officer-in-Charge, namely R.K.I. Bara in his writing and signature marked as Ext. 2/1 and also proved the formal F.I.R. in the writing and signature of R.K.I. Bara, marked as Ext.3. Thereafter, he started investigating the case and arrived near New Kapali Basti and had met the Informant Vicky Bahadur on the way. Then, he recorded the Fardbayan of the Informant and thereafter, he went to the place of occurrence. The place of occurrence was got identified to him by one Mansa Dulai. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of Mansa Dulai. He had also described the place of occurrence in detail. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of witness Banti Sharma, i.e. P.W.5 and had arrested the accused-appellant and he had recorded the defence statement of the accused. Thereafter, he was transferred and he had handed over the investigation of this case to D.K. Srivastava (i.e. P.W.6). 33. During cross-examination, he stated that the Fardbayan was not recorded before him and he had Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13022 ) 16 recorded the statement of the Informant (i.e. subsequent statement of the Informant) at 9.30 p.m. and at that time Banti Sharma (i.e. P.W.5) was also present. He had not mentioned in the Case Diary as to where the statement of the Informant was recorded. 34. He further stated that the witness Mansa Dulai stated that he had no concern with the occurrence and Mansa arrived at the place of occurrence on hearing the sound of alarm “Bachao Bachao” and he had recorded the statement of Mansa on 21.06.2005 at 22.00 Hours. He also stated that he had no information that the Informant Vicky Bahadur was teasing any girl. 35. Thus, from scrutinising the evidence of P.W.2, i.e. the first I.O., namely Juwel Marandi, it would appear that his evidence contradicts the case of the informant as after handing over the investigation of this case by the officer-in-charge after recording the Fardbayan of the Informant, he stated to have recorded the subsequent statement of the Informant on the way at 9.30 p.m. and for which he admitted that he had not mentioned in the Case Diary as to where he had recorded the statement of the Informant, whereas the Informant had stated that his statement was recorded by the Police, i.e. the S.I- Sudhir Kumar on 21.06.2005 at around 8.00 p.m., while lodging the F.I.R.. Even P.W.2, namely Juwel Marandi stated that he was handed over investigation of this case on 20.06.2005 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13022 ) 17 and he had met the Informant & P.W.5, namely Banti Sharma on the way, whereas the F.I.R. was lodged on 21.06.2005 at 8.30 p.m. after recording the Fardbayan of the Informant Vicky on 21.06.2005, at around 8 p.m. in the night. Thus, there cannot be any occasion for him to meet the Informant and P.W.5 on the way on 20.06.2005 when the F.I.R. was lodged on 21.06.2005 Thus, investigation by the P.W.2 on 20.06.2005 is doubtful. 36. P.W.2, namely Juwel Marandi is Part Investigating Officer. He denied to have received any information regarding teasing of any girl by the Informant-Vicky Bahadur. 37. P.W.6 is Dhananjay Kumar Srivastava, i.e. another Investigating Officer, who had submitted chargesheet against the appellant and who had stated that he was handed over the investigation of this case by S.I. Juwel Marandi, i.e. the P.W.2 on 25.08.2005 and on that day he was posted as an Officer-in-Charge of Sonari P.S. Thereafter, he had obtained the injury report of the Informant Vicky Bahadur on 26.08.2005 and which has been mentioned in Para 36 of the Case Diary, which is, as a matter of fact, has been actually mentioned in the Para 26 of the Case Diary. Then, he had submitted chargesheet against the appellant Sambhu Kewat after obtaining supervision note. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13022 ) 18 He admitted for not recording statement of any witness. He also admitted that he had not inspected the place of occurrence. He denied the suggestion for falsely submitting chargesheet against the accused-appellant. 38. Thus, from scrutinising the evidence of P.W.6, i.e. the second I.O., namely Dhananjay Kr. Srivastava, it is evident that he had merely submitted chargesheet against the appellant on the basis of previous investigation conducted by the first I.O. Juwel Marandi, i.e. P.W.2, as he had neither inspected the place of occurrence nor had recorded the statement of any witness and he had merely obtained the injury report of the injured on 26.08.2005. Thus, P.W.6 had merely completed formality. 39. From perusal of evidence of P.W.4, i.e. Dr. D.K. Bhattamishra, it would appear that he had found the injury of 3” X 2” X 1” on the left side of the neck of the Informant, but had opined that it is an alleged case of assault by sharp weapon and which was within Six (06) to eight (08) hours and red in colour when he is said to have examined the injured Informant Vicky Bahadur on 20.06.2005, at around 12.00 mid night. He had also kept his opinion reserved. He had also kept his opinion reserved. However, his evidence reveals that the injury was caused Six (06) to Eight (08) hours prior to the medical examination at 12 ‘O’ Clock at night (i.e. it should be around 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. in the evening of 20.06.2005). 40. Therefore, the time of occurrence is conflicting from the evidence of the Doctor, i.e. P.W.4, Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13022 ) 19 namely Dr. D.K. Bhattamishra, although he had stated that injured was brought by one Banti Sharma, i.e. P.W.5. 41. So far as evidence of P.W.1, i.e. Dr. S.S. Singh is concerned, he had stated that Injury Report of Vicky Bahadur was prepared on 20.06.2005 by Dr. D.K. Bhattamishra, i.e. P.W.4 and he had opined that the nature of injury is dangerous, grievous and such type of injury, if left unattended, may lead to death of the patient and his opinion is marked as Ext. 1/1. 42. Therefore, from the evidence of P.W.1, namely Dr. S.S. Singh, it would appear that he had based his opinion on the opinion of Dr. D.K. Bhattamishra for the first time on 02.08.2005. Even P.W.1, namely Dr. S.S.Singh had mentioned that the injury is incised wound (Left side of neck-3” X 2” X Muscle Deep) and he had not examined the injured Informant. 43. From perusal of the injury report prepared by P.W.4, namely Dr. D.K. Bhattamishra on 20.06.2005, it would appear that it was sent to the Officer-in-Charge of Sonari P.S. from T.M.H. and there is over-writing in the date 20.06.2005. Although it was rectified also as 20.06.2005 in the upper portion of the date and time and even Dr. D.K. Bhattamishra (i.e. P.W.4) was the Senior Registrar of T.M.H. and the date has not been mentioned below the signature of Dr.D.K. Bhattamishra. 44. Thus, the Ext.1 has to be scrutinized with care and caution as it is said to have been sent to the Officer-in-Charge of Sonari P.S. on the same day, i.e. on 20.06.2005. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13022 ) 20 45. However, the formal F.I.R., i.e. Ext. 3 reveals that the F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of fardbayan of the Informant Vicky Bahadur and it does not mention the injury report dated 20.06.2005 prepared by P.W.4-Dr. D.K. Bhattamishra. 46. Ext.1/1 is the Injury report prepared by Dr. S.S. Singh (i.e. P.W.1) on 02.08.2005, who was the Registrar of the T.M.H. and he had opined the nature of injury as dangerous injury. 47. Thus, Injury report marked as Ext.1/1 by P.W.1 Dr. S.S.Singh, prepared on 02.08.2005 appears to be prepared later on and P.W.1 has based his opinion without examining the injured even on 02.08.2005, i.e. the date on which the Injury Report was prepared by P.W.1, namely Dr. S.S. Singh. 48. It further appears that the P.W.5, namely Banti Sharma claimed to have stated that dress of the Informant was in a pool of blood, however, no such clothes were produced during trial either by the Informant, i.e. P.W.3 or by the Investigating Officers, i.e. P.W.2 and P.W.6, namely Juwel Marandi and Dhananjay Kr. Srivastava respectively. 49. Apart from this, it is surprising that P.W.4, i.e. Dr. D.K. Bhattamishra, who had examined the injured Informant allegedly on 20.06.2005, was a Senior Registrar in T.M.H., but he had not given his opinion on the injury of the Informant and the opinion had been kept reserved. However, subsequently, P.W.1, namely Dr. S.S.Singh, who was a Registrar in T.M.H. had issued further Injury Report as 02.08.2005, marked as Ext. 1/1. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13022 ) 21 Therefore, it is surprising that the Registrar, i.e. P.W.1, who is junior to the Senior Registrar, i.e. P.W.4 is giving his opinion subsequently on 02.08.2005. 50. However, the Injury Report, though in fact fully supported the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4, namely Dr.S.S.Singh and Dr.D.K. Bhattamishra respectively, it cannot be relied upon because the Ext.1 is the First Injury report prepared by P.W.4, namely Dr.D.K. Bhattamishra, which was sent and endorsed to the Officer-in-Charge of Sonari P.S. on 20.06.2005. However, it had not found place in the F.I.R.. Even P.W.2 and P.W.6, namely Juwel Marandi and Dhananjay Kr. Srivastava respectively had not stated about receiving Ext.1 from T.M.H. with regard to injury of the Informant. 51. P.W.2, i.e. the first Investigating Officer, namely Juwel Marandi is completely silent regarding the Injury Report dated 20.06.2005 prepared by P.W. 4, i.e. Dr.D.K. Bhattamishra. 52. Even P.W.6, i.e. Mr. D.K. Srivastava, i.e. another Investigating Officer is also silent regarding the Injury report dated 20.06.2005, prepared by P.W.4, Dr.D.K. Bhattamishra. 53. Thus, the Injury Report dated 02.08.2005 was prepared later on by P.W.1, namely Dr. S.S.Singh and which was received by Investigating Officer, i.e. P.W.6, namely D.K. Srivastava. 54. Therefore, this Court is of the view that injury report dated 02.08.2005, marked Ext.1/1 is doubtful and has been prepared subsequently. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13022 ) 22 55. The prosecution had not examined Mansa Dulai, who was claimed by the I.O., i.e. P.W.2, namely Juwel Marandi to have seen the occurrence and who had allegedly arrived at the Place of Occurrence after the alarm raised by the Informant. Even the Informant had not disclosed before the Investigating Officers, i.e. P.W.2 and P.W.6, namely Juwel Marandi and Dhananjay Kr. Srivastav respectively that other persons were also present with the appellant at the time of the occurrence. 56. It transpires from the Lower Court Records that the appellant was arrested on 21.06.2005 and he was enlarged on bail on 16.11.2006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-III, Jamshedpur. Thus, the appellant has remained in jail for around 1-1 ½ years. However, there is consistency of evidence regarding injury on the neck of the Informant, which is supported by the evidence of P.W.3, i.e. Informant and which was also supported and corroborated by evidence of P.W.5, i.e. Banti Sharma. The Injury Report (i.e. Ext.1) is not doubted by the defence. 57. Under the circumstances, conviction of the appellant, namely Sambhu Kewat for the offence under Section 326 of I.P.C. is altered to Section 324 of I.P.C. 58. However, so far as sentence is concerned, considering the fact that the appellant had faced long protracted trial for around 20 years from the date of filing of the F.I.R., i.e. from 21.06.2005 till date and the appellant, namely Sambhu Kewat can be given the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13022 ) 23 59. For the sake of convenience, Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act is quoted below:- “Section 4:- Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct.—(1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the Court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding three years, as the court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour: Provided that the Court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the Court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond. (2) Before making any order under sub-section (1), the Court shall take into consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation to the case. (3) When an order under sub- section (1) is made, the Court may, if it is of opinion that in the interests of the offender and of the public it is expedient so to do, in addition pass a supervision order directing that the offender shall remain under the supervision of a probation officer named in the order during such period, not being less than one year, as may be specified therein, and may in such supervision order impose such conditions as it deems necessary for the due supervision of the offender. (4) The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall require the offender, before he is released, to enter into a bond, with or without sureties, to observe the conditions specified in such order and such additional conditions with respect to residence, abstention from intoxicants or any other matter as the court may, having regard to the particular circumstances, consider fit to impose for preventing a repetition of the same offence or a commission of other offences by the offender. (5) The Court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall explain to the offender the terms and conditions of the order and shall forthwith furnish one copy of the supervision order to each of the offenders, the sureties, if any, and the probation officer concerned.” Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:13022 ) 24 60. Hence the appellant, Sambhu Kewat is directed to be released on furnishing bond of Rs. 5,000/- for a period of one year under the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offender’s Act. The appellant is further directed to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during the said period of one year and in the meantime, he is directed to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for the said period. 61. Thus, this Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.114 of 2009 is allowed in part with the modification in sentence as aforesaid. 62. However, the appellant, namely Sambhu Kewat is directed to execute the bond and in the meantime he must keep the peace and be of good behavior for the said period. 63. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court at once. 64. Let the entire Original Trial Court Records be sent to the learned Trial Court below at once. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Pronounced on 26.03.2025 N.A.F.R./s.m.