2026:JHHC:16668 Page | 1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 242 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.242 of 2019 [Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.01.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Special Fast Track Court, (Crime Against Women), Bermo at Tenughat in Sessions Trial No.95 of 2017 arising out of Peterwar P.S. Case No.70 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. Case No.719 of 2016] Ravindra Manjhi @ Rabindra Manjhi, aged about 48 years, Son of Late Narsingh Manjhi, resident of Village Rangamati, P.O. Mirzapur, P.S. Peterwar, District Bokaro …. …. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand …. …. Respondent --- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Appellant : Mrs. Pinki Kumari, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, A.P.P. Dated: 10th June, 2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the the parties. 2. The present Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.01.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Special Fast Track Court, Bermo at Tenughat in Sessions Trial No.95 of 2017, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years along with a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has further been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 3. The criminal law has been put into motion by lodging an F.I.R. being Peterwar P.S. Case No.70 of 2016 against the appellant for the offence under Section 447, 341, 324, 326 & 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The brief facts of the case, as disclosed in the F.I.R., is that on 18.07.2016 at about 7 ‘O’ Clock in the evening the father of the informant was sitting outside his house, his mother namely, Lumri Devi came out to serve 2026:JHHC:16668 Page | 2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 242 of 2019 water to his father. Upon hearing the cries of his father, the informant came out of his house and saw that his father and mother both were lying on the ground in an injured condition. At that time, the informant saw the accused fleeing from the spot with an axe in his hand. Thereafter, hue and cry was raised in the village that the accused had also assaulted and injured his own brother namely, Golo Manjhi, Sister-in-law namely, Chintamani Devi and niece namely, Kandani Devi with an axe. The villagers caught the accused and took the axe from his hand and kept him in custody. The accused had also sustained minor injuries. Thereafter the police was informed in this regard and the injured persons have taken to the hospital for medical treatment. 5. Upon completion of the investigation, the police has submitted the charge-sheet under sections 447, 341, 326 & 307 of the IPC, upon which, cognizance has been taken and accordingly, charge has been framed against the accused. The case was subsequently committed to the Court of Session to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. For substantiating the prosecution's story, altogether eight witnesses have been examined. 7. P.W-1 Tempoo Karmali, P.W.2 Mahesh Kumar, P.W.3 Parshuram Ganjhu, P.W.4 Aghnu Manjhi are co-villagers and they have turned hostile. 8. P.W.5 Somar Bhogta is the informant of this case. This witness has also been declared hostile. In cross-examination, he has not stated anything against the appellant. 9. P.W.6 Maniram Bhogta, is the victim and he has supported the case. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has not seen the appellant assaulting him. 10. P.W.7 is the Dr. Ajay Kumar Chaudhary, who has examined the injured persons. His medical examination report suggests that the injuries sustained were grievous in nature. However, the injury sustained by another injured namely, Shanti Devi & Chintamani Devi were simple. He has opined that the injuries was caused due to fall on a pointed stone. 2026:JHHC:16668 Page | 3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 242 of 2019 11. P.W.8 Md. Maki Ahmad is the I.O of this case. He has stated that although he visited the place of the occurrence, but did not found any blood- stained and further, he has not seized any blood-stained clothes. He has not produced the alleged weapon of crime i.e., the axe before the trial court also. 12. Thus, it a clear-cut case, in which, there is virtually no evidence connecting the appellant with the alleged crime. 13. It appears that the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence on the basis of conjectures and surmises and has taken note that the Investigating Officer was not diligent in performing his duty as neither independent witnesses has been examined, nor material evidence has been produced. 14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the records, this Court finds that the victim has sustained injury, but no material has been brought on record to suggest the involvement of this appellant with the alleged crime and the prosecution witnesses, as discussed above, have failed to link the appellant with the commission of the alleged offence and in the absence of any material with the crime, a person cannot be convicted. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.01.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Special Fast Track Court, (Crime Against Women), Bermo at Tenughat in Sessions Trial No.95 of 2017, arising out of Peterwar P.S. Case No.70 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. Case No.719 of 2016 is hereby, quashed and set-aside. 15. In the result, the present Criminal Appeal stands allowed and accordingly, disposed of. 16. Since the appellant is already on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond. 17. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this judgment. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Dated: 10th June, 2026 Raja/Uploaded on 16.06.2026