2026:JHHC:19049 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 550 of 2009 ------ Tony Anthony, Son of Late Albert Anthony, Resident of Adityapur Gumti Basti, Chunabhatta, P.O. & P.S.-Adityapur, Dist. Seraikella Kharsawan. … .... …. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shailesh, Advocate For the Resp. State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT C.A.V. on 09.06.2026 Pronounced on 30.06.2026 1. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP. 2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 26th May, 2009 and order of sentence dated 30th May, 2009 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Seraikella at Kharsawan in S.T. Case No. 76 of 2000, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to under R.I. for seven years for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. along with a fine Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation. Factual Matrix:- 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 02.05.1999, at about 9:30 pm, informant Amit Kumar Sharma (P.W.-6) was standing on the gate of his house, in the meantime, present appellant along with one Chhote Ojha and 8-10 other persons arrived there and enquired about Sumit 2026:JHHC:19049 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 550 of 2009 2 (younger brother of the informant). The informant replied that he has gone to attend a party. It is further alleged that both the accused persons started assaulting to the informant. The informant attempted to save himself by entering into his house but both the accused persons chased him and entered into the compound of the house of the informant and also snatched his golden chain worth of Rs. 5,000/-. It is further alleged when informant started to flee away, then, they shot fire on him which hit on the door by making a hole in his shirt. On the basis of above written report of the informant, F.I.R. was registered against the above named accused persons for the offence under Section 147, 198, 149, 323, 307 and 379 of the I.P.C. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 379 and 452 of the IPC and 27 of the Arms Act against the accused persons and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where S.T. Case No. 76 of 2000 was registered. The accused persons denied from the charges leveled against them and claimed to be tried. It appears that in the course of trial, accused Chhote Ojha was absconding, hence his case was separated and trial proceeded against the present appellant. 4. In the course of trial, altogether 9 witnesses were examined by the prosecution apart from documentary evidence. 2026:JHHC:19049 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 550 of 2009 3 5. On the other hand, the case of the defence is denial from occurrence and false implication due to previous enmity. However, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. 6. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on record, found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced him as stated above. The appellant was acquitted from the charge under Section 379 of the I.P.C. extending the benefit of doubt. Submissions on behalf of appellant: - 7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned trial Court has miserably failed to properly appreciate the evidence of informant, who is the sole eye-witness of the occurrence and other evidence available on record. It is further submitted that admittedly, this is a case of no injury and no fire-arm was recovered from the possession of the appellant, even the claim of informant that his shirt got hole from the shot fired by the accused was not produced before the Investigating Officer and has not been proved as a material exhibit. The Investigating Officer has also not noticed any hole in the gate or wall of the house of the informant caused by firing. It is out and out a false case and the learned trial Court has himself believed that the accusation of theft is false and fabricated one. It is also submitted that no independent witnesses has corroborated prosecution story, rather, all are 2026:JHHC:19049 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 550 of 2009 4 interested witnesses including the informant giving contradictory evidence to each other regarding place of occurrence and manner of occurrence which has been ignored by the learned trial Court, while passing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellant, which is liable to be set aside, allowing this appeal. Submissions on behalf of the State 8. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State controverting the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellant, submitted that there is a direct allegation against the appellant that he fired shot against the informant but fortunately, he bent upon and saved himself and the pellet damaged inner gate, which was also found damaged and used cartridge of 0.303 Bore was also recovered from the place of occurrence. Therefore, the intention of the appellant is very clear that he has fired shot against the informant with intention to kill him. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment calling for any interference by way of this appeal, which is devoid of merit and fit to be dismissed. Analysis, reasons and decision: 9. I have gone through the record of case along with impugned judgment in the light of contentions raised on behalf of respective parties. 10. The sole point for determination in this appeal is “as to 2026:JHHC:19049 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 550 of 2009 5 whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant suffers from any error of law, which requires any interference in this appeal?” 11. Before imparting my verdict on the above point, it is pertinent to apprise with the ocular testimony of witnesses examined in this case, during trial. The star witness of this case is the informant-Amit Kumar Sharma (P.W.-6). According to his evidence, on 02.05.1999, at about 9:30-10:00 pm, he was standing at the gate of his house, in the meantime, 10-20 boys came in front of him and asked about Sumit (younger brother of the informant) and he replied that he has gone to attend a party. He has further deposed that the accused persons assaulted this witness, then, he started to enter into his house but he was caught from behind by pulling his shirt and slapped twice. Thereafter, Tony Anthony whipped out a pistol pointing towards this witness and fired. The pellet causing hole in his Shirt from backside hit in the door of the house. His golden chain was also snatched from his neck. He further states that after firing, the accused persons fled away. He has identified only Tony Anthony and Chhote Ojha. After the incident, he lodged the written report at the police station, which is identified by him and marked as Ex.-3. He has further deposed that pellet was found below the door which was also produced before the police. 2026:JHHC:19049 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 550 of 2009 6 In his cross-examination, this witness fairly admits that he went to police station on the next day morning while the police station is situated at a distance of one kilometer from his house. P.W.-1 Paritosh Mahapatra, Advocate Clerk who has proved the formal F.I.R. as Ext.-1 in the signature of the then officer-in-charge. P.W.-2 Tulsidas Mukherjee has been declared hostile by the prosecution but admitted the signature on the seizure list of empty cartridge 0.303 Bore as ext.-2. P.W.-3 Sidhdev Choudhary is also a witness of seizure list and only proved the signature as ext.-2/1. P.W.-4 Subodh Kumar Singh has also been declared hostile by the prosecution and not supported the prosecution story. P.W.-5 Ram Naresh Sharma who is the father of the informant, has admittedly gone to attend a marriage ceremony and returned about 11 PM in the night, then, came to know about the incident from his son Amit Kumar Sharma. P.W.-7 Sita Kumari is the younger sister of the informant, has deposed that on 02.05.1999, in the night, 3-4 boys came to her quarter, about 9:30 pm, at that time, she along with her sister-in-law and elder brother Amit Kumar Sharma were present in the house. She has deposed that the accused persons were asking about Sumit (her younger 2026:JHHC:19049 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 550 of 2009 7 brother). When it was told that he has gone to attend a party, then, the accused persons fired upon her elder brother, but she pulled her brother and the pellet hit on the door. She has not identified any miscreants. Therefore, she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.-8 Poonam Devi who is the wife of the informant, has also deposed same line as P.W.-7 and failed to identify any of the miscreants. P.W.-9 Raj Nandan Ram is the Investigating Officer of this case. According to his evidence, on 03.05.1999, he was posted as police sub-inspector at Adityapur Police Station. At about 9:30 AM, one Amit Kumar Sharma presented a written report before the then officer-in-charge, S.I., Naresh Kumar, on the basis of which, F.I.R. was registered and charge of investigation was given to him. He recorded restatement of the informant and also visited the place of occurrence, which is the Pakka house of informant situated in Adityapur at Road No. 12, having main door towards south. There is boundary wall about 3-4 fit height and fitted with an iron gate from the front. After the boundary wall, there is a main wooden gate. Thereafter, one gate is inside, which is also made of wood. He was informed that inside main gate, there was mark of firing in front of the door and empty cartridge of 0.303 Bore was found, which was seized in presence of witnesses and marked as Ext. 2/2. He has further submitted 2026:JHHC:19049 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 550 of 2009 8 that witness Sita Kumari and Poonam Devi have stated before him the name of accused persons to whom they have identified as Tony Anthory and Chhote Ojha, although, 8-10 boys entered into the house. This witness has also noticed that inside door at right side, there was mark of hole caused by pellet from backside. He also noticed that at a height of 3-6 fit from the ground level, in both panel of wooden door, there was mark of firing but he has not mentioned the depth of the hole nor the door was seized. He has also not seized wearing shirt of the informant which is alleged that a hole was caused due to pellet. He has simply found the pellet lying under the door. He has not seized any pistol. This witness has denied the suggestion of the defence that he has given false evidence regarding hole in the panel of doors caused by firing and without making proper enquiry in the incident as well as delay in lodging the F.I.R. of 12 hours, he has submitted the charge sheet without any sufficient evidence against the accused persons. 12. From the perusal of aforesaid testimony of witnesses, it is crystal clear that except the informant (P.W.-6), no one has claimed to identify the appellant. It has although surfaced on record that at the time of occurrence, informant, his wife and younger sister were present. It is stated that there was single fire aiming to the informant causing hole in the shirt of the informant from backside through waist hitting the door. 2026:JHHC:19049 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 550 of 2009 9 There is no whisper from any corner that twice or thrice, fire short has taken place in this case. It is also admitted position that wearing shirt, in which, a hole was caused by firing, was never produced by the informant during investigation nor it was seized by the investigating officer during investigation and also the seizure list witness of empty cartridge 0.303 Bore have also stated that nothing was recovered in their presence, rather, police has obtained their signature on the seizure list. The seized pellet was also not produced during trial as material exhibit. It is also surprising that only one shot of pellet which went causing hole in the Shirt of the informant towards the wooden door, then, how it is possible that both panel of the door would get mark of pellet firing. Therefore, story of firing appears to be not believable, at all, as per evidence of witnesses as well as deposition of investigating officer, who has described the place of occurrence and other positive things. The mere presence of empty cartridge lying under the door of the house of the informant cannot be taken to be proved of firing. It is also admitted that police station is just one kilometer from the place of occurrence but the F.I.R. was lodged after delay of 12 hours without explaining any reason by the informant in his written report, which also cast cloud of suspicion on the prosecution story, as projected in the F.I.R. The learned trial Court has rightly disbelieved the factum of commission of theft of Rs. 5,000/- from the 2026:JHHC:19049 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 550 of 2009 10 informant. The rest part of the allegation is also not convincing and stand to reason as depicted by the witnesses. The prosecution case is that 8-10 boys including the present appellant entered into the house of the informant, if they might have intended to commit murder of informant, there was no intervening circumstance to prevent them from doing so. Therefore, it appears that the learned trial Court has miserably failed to consider the evidence of witnesses, particularly, the informant in right perspective considering each and every material including the evidence of investigating officer who has noticed some description about the place of occurrence. 13. In sum and substance, the prosecution story cannot be believed at all, as projected by the prosecution. It appears that the learned trial Court has committed serious error of law by appreciating the evidence of witnesses available on record and arrived at wrong conclusion about the guilt of the appellant for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C., although, he was acquitted from the charge under Section 379 of the I.P.C. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion and reasons, I find merits in this appeal. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court in S.T. No. 76 of 2000 is hereby set aside and this appeal is allowed. 2026:JHHC:19049 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 550 of 2009 11 15. Appellant is on bail, hence, he is discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds. The sureties are also discharged. 16. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly. 17. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 30/06/2026 Basant / NAFR Uploaded On: 01/07/2026