IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.851 of 2005 …. Ajay Ram, S/o Late Sukhdeo Ram, resident of Village-Manan Chotag, P.S. & District-Latehar ……Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ……Respondent ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Appellant : Mr. Akhouri Prakhar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, APP …… ORAL JUDGMENT IN COURT Order No.05 /08.01.2025 This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.06.2005 and 01.07.2005 respectively passed by Sri Ram Babu Gupta, Additional Session Judge, Fast Track Court, Latehar in S.T. No.493 of 1993 by which the appellant Ajay Ram had been convicted for the offence under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of five (5) years and to pay the fine of Rs. 3,000/-. Although the learned Court below has acquitted the co-accused Karu Yadav for the offence under Section 307/34 of I.P.C. 2. It has been alleged that when the informant on 03.03.1992 was returning from tanning plant “Durua” Factory at about 10.00 o’clock night on a cycle after his duty and when he reached near the house of one Ajay Ram, then all of a sudden three miscreants, who were concealing themselves, came out and one accused Ajay Ram caught hold of the carrier of the cycle and co-accused Kuleshwar Yadav stabbed him on his abdomen with knife (Chaku) and another accused Karu Yadav surrounded to the informant and commanded the miscreants to do away his life and the informant fell down and blood started flowing and thereafter one truck of 2 Pramukh Shyam Kishore Yadav brought him to his house and thereafter he was brought to hospital for treatment. 3. Heard Mr. Akhouri Prakhar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, learned A.P.P on behalf of the State. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the allegations against the appellant made by the informant are false and concocted. It has been submitted that no overt act has been committed by the appellant and he had no motive to commit such evidence. It is submitted that for the same set of evidence, the learned Court below acquitted the co-accused-Karu Yadav whereas the appellant Ajay Ram had been convicted for only touching the carrier of the cycle of the informant. 4. It is further submitted that the appellant has remained in custody for few days. It is submitted that the I.O. of this case has not been examined. It is also submitted that there is no eyewitness of the occurrence except the informant and other prosecution witnesses are only hearsay witnesses and hence the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below may be set aside and the appellant may be acquitted. 5. On the other hand, learned APP has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no interference is required. It is submitted that the PW-1 is the informant of this case, who has fully supported the prosecution case against the accused persons including the appellant. It is submitted that the evidence of 3 informant corroborated from the evidence of PW-6 i.e., Dr. Siddh Nath and the injury sustained by the informant is proved. It is submitted that PW-2- Kaltu Yadav, PW-3-Manger Yadav, PW-4- Paltu Yadav, PW-5-Parigan Yadav had also seen that the informant was in injured condition. Thus, the prosecution has successfully proved its case. Thus, this Criminal Appeal has no merit and may be dismissed. 6. Perused the Lower Court Records of this case and considered the submissions made on behalf of learned counsel for both the sides. 7. It transpires that the informant had lodged the FIR against three persons including the appellant on 04.03.1992 in Latehar P.S. Case No.027 of 1992, corresponding to G.R. Case No.88 of 1992 under Section 341, 326, 307/34 I.P.C. 8. It transpires that the police, after investigation, submitted charge sheet against the appellant and two others Karu Yadav and Kulshwar Yadav under Section 307, 326/34 I.P.C before the C.J.M, Latehar on 22.05.1992. The learned S.D.J.M had taken cognizance against the appellant and two others under Section 307, 326/34 IPC on 22.05.1992 . 9. After supplying the police papers to the accused persons, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 10. The charges were framed against the appellant and two Karu Yadav and Kulshwar Yadav on 22.07.1998 for the offence under Section 307/34 of I.P.C by Sri S.K. Singh, then 6th Additional and Sessions Judge, Palamau, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 11. During Trial of co-accused (who has said to have committed knife injury has been separated by the learned Trial 4 Court vide order dated 14.10.1999) and thus, the trial was pending only against Karu Yadav and the appellant Ajay Ram. 12. During trial the prosecution got examined nine (09) witnesses is support of its case, who are as follows:- (i) PW-1 is Muneshwar Yadav (i.e. the Informant), (ii) PW-2 is Kaltu Yadav, (iii) PW-3 is Mangar Yadav, (iv) PW-4 is Paltu Yadav, (v) PW-5 is Pargan Yadav, (vi) PW-6 is Dr. Siddh Nath, (vii) PW-7 is Situ Yadav, (viii) PW-8 is Ful Chand Majhi and (ix) PW-9 is Manoj Kr. Gupta. 13. The prosecution case in support of its case had marked following Exhibits which are as follows:- (i) Ext.1 is Signature of Kaltu Yadav on Fardbeyan, (ii) Ext.2 is Carbon copy of injury report of Muneshwar Yadav, (iii) Ext.2/1 is Carbon copy of injury report of injured Muneshwar Yadav, (iv) Ext.3 is Challan, (v) Ext.4 is Signature of S.I. Kirani Singh on formal F.I.R and (vi) Ext.5 is whole Fardbeyan. 14. The prosecution has proved Material Ext.-I i.e. knife without blood. 15. Thereafter, the appellant Karu Yadav was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. on 08.06.2005 by the learned Court below and to which the appellants had denied the circumstances put forth 5 before them. 16. Neither any defence witnesses was examined nor any document marked as Exhibit. 17. Thereafter, the learned Court below after considering the case of both the sides, has convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 307/34 of I.P.C, although for the same set of witness, the learned Court below had acquitted the co-accused Karu Yadav for the offence under Section 307/34 of I.P.C. Hence, the appreciation of evidence of prosecution witnesses is necessary. 17. PW-1 is Muneshwar Yadav, who is informant in this case and he has supported the prosecution case on the point of occurrence and stated that while he was returning by cycle and Ajay Ram was sitting behind in the cycle and then, near the house of Ajay Ram, where the informant stopped his cycle then Ajay Ram i.e. appellant allegedly held the carrier of the cycle. Then, in the meantime, co-accused Kuleshwar Yadav arrived there and assaulted him by Bhujali in his abdomen due to which he sustained injury in his abdomen. However, during cross examination he admitted that he had land dispute with one Kuleshwar Yadav and he also admitted that Ajay Ram i.e. the appellant had not assaulted and not stabbed him by knife and even Karu Yadav had not assaulted him. The accused persons fled away before the arrival of the Truck. He further claimed that near the said house Baban Pandey, Ganori Sao and one Bhuniya reside near the place the occurrence but they did not come to the place of occurrence. Then he was taken to hospital by the driver of the Truck and became unconscious. 18. Thus, from scrutinizing of evidence of PW-1, it is evident 6 that no any specific overt act had been done by the appellant against the informant except the pulling the carrier of the cycle. He also admitted that even the co-accused Karu Yadav had not assaulted him and he had mainly alleged against co-accused Kuleshwar Yadav due to which he had land dispute with him and stabbed knife in his abdomen. 19. PW-2 is Kaltu Yadav who is a hearsay witness and he had seen the informant Munshwar Yadav sleeping in his courtyard and it is stated that Kuleshwar Yadav had assaulted him by knife then he had taken him to hospital. During cross examination he admitted that he had not seen anybody stabbing the informant and place of occurrence situated half kilometer far from his residence. Thus, PW-2 is hearsay witness, and he had not seen the appellant committing any overt act. 20. PW-3 is Manager Yadav, who is also a hearsay witness and stated that he had seen the informant Muneshwar Yadav was crying near the house of Sipahi Mahto and driver Pargan Yadav, and Paltu Yadav were also present. During cross examination, he stated that they had kept the injured near his house and he knew nothing. Thus, PW-3 has not supported the prosecution case against the appellant and thus PW-3 has not seen anything against the appellant. 21. PW-4 is Paltu Yadav, who is a labourer, stated during evidence that while the other labourers were returning then they met informant Muneshwar Yadav on the way and asked him to accompany till the house of Paltu Yadav i.e. PW-2 and he caught his waist. 7 During cross examination, he stated that they had kept the informant in the house and he knew nothing after that and they had not brought injured on his vehicle. Thus, PW-4 has also not supported the prosecution case against the appellant and hence his evidence is not relevant to convict the appellant. 22. PW-5 is Pargan Yadav, who is the Driver and stated during the evidence that while he was returning by the vehicle and arrived near the house of Sipahi Mahto, then the informant Muneshwar Yadav asked him to save his life and he brought him near the house of Kaltu Yadav, i.e. PW-2 and thereafter they left the place. During cross examination he stated that he left the injured at the residence and he knew nothing and he had not taken the Muneshwar Yadav in his vehicle at any place. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence PW-5, it is evident that he has not supported the prosecution case against the appellant. 23. PW-6 is Dr. Siddh Nath, who had examined the injured i.e. informant and found following injuries on his person:- (i) Vertically Linear stab injury over epigastarum of abdomen with profused bleeding- measurement 1”x1/2x4 Caused by sharp cutting penetrating weapon. Age of injury within 3 hours. Nature of injury:- the case was referred to R.M.C.H. Ranchi for needful. The opinion to be formed after receiving operation report from treating expert from R.M.C.H. Ranchi. (ii) Supplementary Report -On 19.05.1992 at 04.30 P.M. a Photo state copy of report was presented before me by the 8 S.I. of Latehar P.S., on the basis of which the injury was declared dangerous to the life, hence grievance in nature. He further proved the carbon copy injury report marked as Ext.02 and 02/01 respectively. However, he had stated that the injuries were grievous in nature. During cross examination he admitted that original injury report was not brought before him during the evidence. And he cannot give any explanation for non-availability of original injury report. 24. Thus, from the evidence of PW-6 that it would appear that the carbon copy of injury report was brought on record and the original injury report was not marked on behalf of the prosecution. Moreover, his evidence will be relevant for the main accused Kuleshwar Yadav. 25. PW-7 is Situ Yadav, who was a labour, while he was sitting in his house then he was informed by Kaltu Yadav that the informant Muneshwar Yadav was lying in injured condition in his courtyard and he had sustained knife injury. He also stated that Kuleshwar Yadav, Karu Yadav and Ajay Yadav had assaulted the informant by knife. During cross examination, he admitted that the occurrence had not taken during his presence and he is a hearsay witness and he is stating as per information given by neighbour. Thus, PW-7 is also hearsay witness and had not seen the occurrence and thus evidence of PW-7 is not sufficient to convict the appellant. 26. PW-8 is Ful Chand Majhi, who is Chowkidar No.2/5 at Latehar P.S., has brought the knife marked as Material Ext.I and he has further proved the challan in the writing of S.I. Kamlesh 9 Kumar, Malkhana In-charge, Latehar marked as Ext.3 During cross-examination he stated that nothing was seized during his presence and he had no personal knowledge of seized article of this case. Thus, PW-8 is also a formal witness. 27. PW-9 is Manoj Kumar Gupta, who is clerk of Public Prosecutor and has proved the formal F.I.R marked as Ext.4 and signature of S.I. Kirani Singh then Officer-In-charge, Latehar. He further proved the endorsement on F.I.R marked as Ext.5. During cross-examination he admitted that said papers were not written during his presence. Thus, PW-9 is also a formal witness and he is not competent to prove formal FIR i.e. Ext-4 and endorsement on FIR i.e. Ext.-5. 28. It is further evident that the I.O. of this case had not been examined and which is fatal for the prosecution case. 29. So far as the evidence of PW-1 is concerned, it would appear that he had also not stating any overt act against the appellant for assaulting him. 30. It transpires that none of the witnesses i.e. PW-2, PW-3, PW-5, PW-7, PW-8 and PW-9 namely Kaltu Yadav, Manger Yadav, Pargan Yadav, Situ Yadav, Ful Chand Majhi and Manoj Kr. Gupta respectively, had stated against the appellant for committing any specific overt act and no specific overt act is attributed against the appellant by them rather they are hearsay witnesses. 31. Thus, for the same set of evidence, the appellant has been convicted illegally which is not corroborated from any evidence and no animosity has been shown against him by the Informant. 32. Under the circumstances, the judgment of conviction 10 dated 29.06.2005 and sentence dated 01.07.2005 passed by Sri Ram Babu Gupta, learned Additional Session Judge, Fast Track Court, Latehar in S.T. No.493 of 1993 against the appellant namely Ajay Ram for the offence under Section 307/34 of IPC is set aside and the appellant is acquitted from the charges under Section 307/34 of IPC and discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds. 33. Thus, this Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.851 of 2005 is hereby allowed. 34. Let the entire Original Lower Court Record alongwith the copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Court below. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Nishant/-