2026:JHHC:16778 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.149 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OFJHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 149 of 2017 [Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 21.01.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No.585 of 2013 arising out of Baliapur P.S. Case No.86 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No.4839 of 2012] --------- 1. Amar Mukherjee @ Tukun Mukherjee, son of Late Hirendra Nath Mukherjee 2. Shankar Mukherjee, son of Late Hirendra Nath Mukherjee, resident of Kusmatand, P.O.-Pargha, P.S. Baliapur, Dist. Dhanbad 3. Vijay Singh @ Vijay Kumar Singh, son of Suresh Prasad Singh, resident of Jairampur More, P.O. and P.S.-Tisra, Dist. Dhanbad ……Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand …. Respondent ---------- For the Appellants : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate Mr. Pradyot Chatterjee, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P. --------- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT ----------- CAV On 11th May, 2026 Pronounced On 10/06/2026 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the appellants and learned A.P.P. 2. Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 21.01.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No.585 of 2013 arising out of Baliapur P.S. Case No.86 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No.4839 of 2012, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty 2026:JHHC:16778 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.149 of 2017 2 for the offences under sections 342, 323, 324/34, 307/34 and 364/34 of IPC and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 years along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, for the offence under section 307/34 of IPC, R.I. for 4 years along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under section 364/34 of IPC, R.I for 3 years along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under section 324/34 of IPC, R.I. for 1 years for the offence under section 323 of IPC and further R.I. for 1 years for the offence under section 342 of IPC with default stipulation. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Factual Matrix:- 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the informant, Manohar Sharma runs a saloon and on 09.12.2012 at about 10:30 pm the accused, Amar Mukherjee and Shankar Mukherjee on pretext of dinner in marriage party brought him at Panchet Road from Baliapur by vehicle but in the midway near village Barbari in the forest, both the accused persons along with their friend namely, Vijay Singh started assaulting the informant causing grievous injuries and also pressed his neck by wrapping muffler around his neck and also assaulted by sharp-cutting weapon due to which the informant became unconscious and the accused persons fled away. It is further alleged that after sometime, the informant regained consciousness and came to village Barbari. Thereafter, he was brought to Kalubathan OP, from where he was sentto PHC, Nisra for treatment. It is alleged that all the accused persons on 2026:JHHC:16778 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.149 of 2017 3 pretext of dinner brought the informant to forest area and attempted to kill him. 4. On the basis of above information, Baliapur P.S. Case No.86 of 2012 was registered for the offence under sections 341, 342, 323, 324, 307, /34 of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for the offences under sections 342, 323, 324, 307, 364/34 of IPC and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions where S.T. No.585 of 2013 was registered and charges were framed. The accused persons have denied the charges leveled against them and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of trial, the impugned judgment and order was passed, which has been assailed in this appeal. 5. In the course of trial, altogether 10 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, namely:- P.W.1-Babita Devi P.W.2-Mahendra Rawani P.W.3-Ashok Kumar Pandey P.W.4-Gopal Chandra Mahato P.W.5-Shailendra Sharma P.W.6-Manbodh Rawani P.W.7-Manohar Sharma (informant) P.W.8-Mahipal Purti (first I.O.) P.W.9-Dr. Vijay Pratap Singh 2026:JHHC:16778 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.149 of 2017 4 P.W.10-Amit Ekka (subsequent I.O.) 6. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, following documentary evidences have been adduced by the prosecution. Ext.1.-Signature of Manohar Sharma on written report of FIR Ext.2.-Signature of O/C Abinash Kumar Singh on formal FIR Ext.3- Injury report. 7. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defense. The case of defence is denial from the occurrence and false implication. 8. Learned trial court after evaluating the evidence available on record held the appellants guilty for the aforesaid offences and sentenced them as stated above. Submission on behalf of appellants:- 9. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the sole eye-witness of the occurrence is the informant-cum-injured in this case and all other witnesses of facts are hearsay witnesses and some of them are declared hostile. Learned trial court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence available on record as there is no motive behind the occurrence attributed to the appellants. Admittedly, the informant-cum-injured was going to attend marriage party and due to some scuffle, the exchange of 2026:JHHC:16778 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.149 of 2017 5 assault took place where the informant received some injuries and due to non-availability of any transport facility, he returned to home on the next day morning and lodged this false case against the appellants. Admittedly, the injuries found on the person of the informant have been opined to be simple in nature. There was no reason for kidnapping/abducting the informant with a view to commit murder and it was not a case of abduction rather the informant simply accompanied with the accused persons to attend the marriage party. Therefore, no offence under sections 307 and 364 of IPC is attracted in this case and no materials have been brought on record to conclusively prove the aforesaid offence. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants for the aforesaid offences is liable to be set aside. At best, the case comes under sections 323 and 324 of IPC. The testimony of the informant as depicted in the FIR has not been corroborated from any independent of source. It was the first offence of the appellants, which also finds mentioned in the impugned judgment. Therefore, the appellants deserve the benefit of section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. Submission on behalf of State:- 10. Learned A.P.P. defending the impugned judgment on merits has submitted that learned trial court has taken into consideration the overall materials available on record, genesis and manner of occurrence, under which the informant was abducted by the present appellants and brutally 2026:JHHC:16778 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.149 of 2017 6 assaulted and the injuries were also found on the vital part of the body and life threatening. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and there is no merits in this appeal and is fit to be dismissed. Analysis, Reasons and Decision:- 11. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment and order in the light of the contentions raised on behalf of both side. 12. The only point for determination in this appeal is that “as to whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant passed by learned trial court suffers from any error of law calling for any interference in this appeal?” 13. Before adjudicating the above point, it is necessary to take brief resume of oral as well as documentary evidence lead by the prosecution to substantiate the charges leveled against the appellant P.W.1- Babita Devi is the wife of the informant and is not an eye-witness rather she came to know from her husband about the occurrence. P.W.2-Mahendra Rawani, P.W.3-Ashok Kumar Pandey, P.W.4-Gopal Chandra Mahto, P.W.5-Shailendra Sharma and P.W.6-Manbodh Rawani are also either hearsay witnesses or not eye- 2026:JHHC:16778 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.149 of 2017 7 witnesses of the occurrence and supported the prosecution case in hearsay manner. The star witness of the case is the informant P.W.7- Manohar Sharma. According to his evidence, on 09.12.2012 at about 10:30 pm, all the accused persons came on Alto Car to his shop and requested to go for marriage party to which this witness told that he has no invitation but they insisted upon him and forcibly took away the informant in his vehicle. He further stated that he was brought to Barbari forest area and all the accused persons started assaulting him. It is specifically stated that the accused, Shankar and Vijay tied his neck with muffler and started assaulting by fists and fats and the accused, Tukun Mukherjee assaulted by sharp-cutting weapon like bhujali. Thereafter, he became unconscious and in the next day morning at about 4:00 am, he regained consciousness and he found himself at Kalubathan OP and Nirsa police station was informed, thereafter he was sent to PHC, Nirsa. This witness has alleged the motive behind the occurrence is scratch in the vehicle of Tukun Mukherjee caused by his younger son and due to revenge, this incident took place. This witness was cross-examined at a length but no discrepancies or contradictions have been found in his cross- examination to disbelieve the aforesaid testimony. 2026:JHHC:16778 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.149 of 2017 8 P.W.8- ASI Mahipal Purti is the Investigating Officer of this case. According to his evidence, he has visited the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of witnesses. Due to seriousness of the injuries, the informant was sent to PMCH, Dhanbad for better treatment and later on the charge of investigation was handed over to the officer-in-charge. P.W.10-Amit Ekka is the subsequent I.O. of this case. He has stated that he has taken further investigation of this case and perused the case diary of the previous Investigation Officer and submitted charge-sheet. So he has only submitted the charge sheet. P.W.9-Dr. Vijay Pratap Sinha is the associate professor at PMCH, Dhanbad. He has examined the injured Manohar Sharma on 10.12.2012 at about 10:50 am and found following injuries:- (i) Lacerated wound on forehead 3” x 2” x bone deep (ii) Sharp cutting wound on top of skull four in numbers size were 4” x ½”, 3”x ½”; 2”x1/2”, 1” x ½” (iii) Sharp cutting injury two in number on left side of temporal region, semi lunar 1” x ½” and other 1” x ½” (iv)Lacerated wound left side eyebrow 2 ½” x 1” x bone deep. This witness has opined that all injuries are simple in nature. Injury Nos.(i) and (iv) were caused by hard blunt substance and Injury 2026:JHHC:16778 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.149 of 2017 9 Nos.(ii) and (iii) were caused by sharp-cutting weapon. The injury report marked as Ext.3. 14. From the aforesaid discussion of the evidence available on record, it appears that no grave animosity has been propounded by the prosecution against the appellants rather it is simply stated that the son of the informant has scratched the vehicle of the accused, Tukun Mukherjee prior to the occurrence as the main reasons for occurrence. Admittedly, the injured was brought to the forest area and was assaulted by the appellants and there is no dispute about identity of the appellants showing their involvement in the alleged offence. The nature of injuries is also not dangerous to life rather found to be simple in nature opined by the conducting Doctor (P.W.9). In the entire spectrum of factual aspects of the case, no offence under sections 364 and 307 of IPC is proved conclusively by the prosecution. In this connection, the findings recorded by the learned trial court appear to be not correct and corroborated by any evidence. If the appellants might have intended to kill the informant, there was no impediment to do so because the informant was brought at a lonely place and assaulted by each of the appellants. No injury on neck was found as stated by the informant. The sharp-cut injury was also simple in nature although four in numbers but not sufficient to cause serious and dangerous effect. 2026:JHHC:16778 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.149 of 2017 10 15. Considering the overall aspects of the case, it appears that learned trial court has arrived at wrong conclusion while convicting the appellants for the offence under sections 364 and 307 of IPC without any evidence. Therefore, conviction and sentence of the appellants for the offence under sections 307 and 364 read with section 34 of IPC is set aside. 16. So far the conviction of the appellants for the offence under sections 342, 323, 324 read with section 34 of IPC is concerned, it finds corroboration from the evidence of witnesses including the injured- informant and the Doctor (P.W.9), therefore, upheld and confirmed. 17. It further appears that it was the first offence of the appellants having no criminal antecedents and was never convicted for any offence prior to this occurrence. 18. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arvind Mohan Sinha V. Amulya Kumar Biswas as reported in (1974) 4 SCC 222, at para 11 that:- “11. The Probation of Offenders Act is a reformative measure and its object is to reclaim amateur offenders who, if spared the indignity of incarceration, can be usefully rehabilitated in society. A jail term should normally be enough to wipe out the stain of guilt but the sentence which the society passes on convicts is relentless. The ignominy commonly associated with a jail term and the social stigma which attaches to convicts often render the remedy worse than the disease and the very purpose of punishment stands in the danger of being frustrated. In recalcitrant cases, 2026:JHHC:16778 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.149 of 2017 11 punishment has to be deterrent so that others similarly minded may warn themselves of the hazards of taking to a career of crime. But the novice who strays into the path of crime ought, in the interest of society, be treated as being socially sick. Crimes are not always rooted in criminal tendencies and their origin may lie in psychological factors induced by hunger, want and poverty. The Probation of Offenders act recognises the importance of environmental influence in the commission of crimes and prescribes a remedy whereby the offender can be reformed and rehabilitated in society. An attitude of social defiance and recklessness which comes to a convict who, after a jail term, is apt to think that he has no more to lose or fear may breed a litter of crime. The object of the Probation of Offenders Act is to nip that attitude in the bud. Winifred A. Elkin describes probation as a system which provides a means of re-education without the necessity of breaking up the offender's normal life and removing him from the natural surroundings of his home”. Therefore, considering the genesis and manner of occurrence, age, antecedent and character of the appellants, it is expedient in the ends of justice to extend the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the appellants, for which the appellants appear to be entitled, instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment. 19. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in conviction and sentence to the extent mentioned above. Instead of undergoing substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the 2026:JHHC:16778 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.149 of 2017 12 appellants by the learned Trial Court, the appellants are hereby directed to be released on furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 within two months from the date of this order for maintaining peace and be of good behavior for one year from the date of furnishing the bond. 20. If the bond is not furnished within above stipulated time, the learned Trial Court shall issue notice upon the appellants to secure their attendance for furnishing the bond. 21. In case of violation of terms and conditions of the bond, the appellants shall be called upon to receive the sentence already awarded to them. 22. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly. 23. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi Date:10/ 06 /2026 Pappu/- N.A.F.R. Uploaded on 11/06 /2026