2026:JHHC:19150 1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 544 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 544 of 2021 ----- [Against the judgment of conviction dated 30.11.2021and order of sentence, dated 09.12.2021 passed in Sessions Trial No. 185 of 2018 arising out of Margomunda P.S. Case No. 53 of 2017, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Deoghar] 1.Safual Ansari @ Safaul Ansari, aged about 23 years, son of Safique Mian. 2.Tajmul Ansari, aged about 20 years, son of Safique Mian. Both are residents of Murli Pahari, P.O. Karanjo, P.S. Margomunda, District- Deoghar, Jharkhand --- --- Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent ….... For the Appellants : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Pratik, Advocate Mr. Ritu Raj, Advocate Mr. Pratik Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashishtha, Spl.P.P. PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR J U D G M E N T By Court 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Spl.P.P. representing the State. 2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 30.11.2021and order of sentence, dated 09.12.2021 passed in Sessions Trial No. 185 of 2018 arising out of Margomunda P.S. Case No. 53 of 2017, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge- VI, Deoghar, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 308/34 of the IPC and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 years with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each and in case of default of payment of fine, they are further directed to undergo R.I. for 1 year. 2026:JHHC:19150 2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 544 of 2021 3. The criminal law has been put into motion on lodging of written application by the informant Fatima Bibi before the Officer-in-charge of Margomunda Police Station on 05.06.2017 on the basis of which Margomunda P.S. Case No. 53 of 2017 was registered against seven accused persons. In the said fardbeyan, the informant has stated that on 04.06.2017 at about 8.35 P.M., it was the month of Ramzan when the accused assaulted and beat the informant’s son with deadly weapons such as tangi, lathi etc. on his head and other body parts causing grievous injuries. 4. On the basis of the above fardbeyan, the case was registered being Margomunda P.S. Case No. 53 of 2017 dated 05.06.2017 under Sections 341,323,324,326 and 307/34 IPC against the accused. 5. After investigation of the case, police has submitted charge sheet under Sections 341,323,325,307,34 of the IPC against seven accused persons including the present two appellants. Cognizance in the matter was accordingly taken vide order dated 02.05.2018. 6. Thereafter, charge was framed on 14.09.2018 against the accused under Section 307/34 of the IPC, which was later on amended on 18.02.2021 wherein only the name of the injured was changed and that was not objected by the defence. The charge was read over to the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. To substantiate the prosecution story altogether eight prosecution witnesses have been examined. Their brief statements are as follows: I. P.W.1(Saddam Ansari) – He is the brother of the injured and deposed that on the date of the incident, prior to the occurrence, the accused Tazmul tried to steal mango from the fruit cart and when confronted by the injured, it led to an altercation and intimidation at the hands of the accused. On the same day, after the evening Namaz, when the injured came out of the mosque, the accused Tazmul Ansari was 2026:JHHC:19150 3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 544 of 2021 having tangi, Safaul had iron rod, Safique, Karu, Hamid, Roshan and Bahruddin Mian had lathi and all unleashed violent attack on his brother Firdaus. Tazmul gave a tangi blow on the right side of the head and Safaul and others beat his brothers with lathi. His brother was badly drenched in blood and bearing the commotion and cry of help, his mother and others gathered and the accused managed to flee away. All the accused attacked with his brother with the intention of causing his death. Thereafter, they informed the police and, on advice, they took the injured to Madhupur Hospital and for better treatment to Deoghar Hospital where he was admitted for two days and from there he was taken to Dhanbad for better treatment but his admission was denied. Thereafter they took his brother to Medanta Institute of Neuro Science, Ranchi where for 17-18 days he was treated. His brother is still undergoing treatment even after one and a half year of the incident. The accused was identified by the witness. II. P.W.2(Sajjad Ansari) – He is also brother of the injured and he has reiterated as stated by P.W.1 III. P.W.3(Irshad Ansari) – He is the uncle of injured and he has also reiterated the statement made by P.W.1 and P.W.2 IV. P.W.4(Shamsher Ansari) – He is an independent witness and has also reiterated the incident narrated by P.W.1, 2 and 3. In cross examination he has deposed that he was not present at the place of occurrence V. P.W.5(Fatima Bibi)- She is the informant of the case and mother of the injured. She is the eye witness of the case. She deposed she was sitting outside of her house. When her son came out of the mosque, Tazmul Ansari gave a tangi blow on the head of her son and Safaul Ansari assaulted him with iron rod on his head. Safique Mian, Karu Mian, Hamid 2026:JHHC:19150 4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 544 of 2021 Mian, Roshan Mian and Bahruddin Mian beat him with lathi. Thereafter, they fled away. Further, she took her son to Madhupur hospital and from there to Deoghar hospital and thereafter, to Apollo Ranchi and even after a span of two years, her son has not recovered and is on the cot. On the next day on 05.06.2017 she gave a complaint to the police which bears her thumb impression and recognized the accused in the dock. In cross examination she has admitted in paragraph 9 that on hulla she had approached the place of incident. VI. P.W.6(Firdaus Ansari)- He is the victim- injured of the violent attack. He has deposed that when he came out of the mosque, all the accused surrounded him and Tazmul Ansari gave a axe blow on his head due to which he started bleeding (the witness showed his injury in the court). The other accused Safaul Ansari with the intention of causing his death hit him with the iron rod. Other accused Bahruddin, Hamid, Karu and Roshan hit him with the wooden staff due to which he suffered other injuries. For treatment he was referred to Referral Hospital, Madhupur thereafter to Deoghar and thereafter to Dhanbad and thereafter to Ranchi for better treatment. The witness deposed that after the evening Namaz around 04:00 PM, the accused Tazmul stole the mango and when he confronted him, he was threatened with dire consequences. The witness recognized the accused in the dock. In cross examination he has admitted about the previous enmity with them. VII. P.W.7(Ravindra Singh)- He is the I.O of the case and was assigned investigation of this case. He recognized the complaint given by the informant and forwarding on it by then I/c which is exhibited as Ext. 1. FIR was exhibited as Ext. 2. He has deposed in his chief examination that he took 2026:JHHC:19150 5 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 544 of 2021 the statement of the informant and inspected the place of occurrence during the investigation. Thereafter, he took statement of other witnesses and procured injury report of Firdaus Ansari and also took statement of Firdaus Ansari and after investigation he submitted charge sheet against the accused persons. VIII. P.W.8 (Dr. Manoj Kr. Hembrom)- He is the Medical Witness of the case. He deposed that he was posted as Medical Officer at Sub-divisional Hospital, Madhupur. On that day, he examined Firdaus Ansari and found lacerated wound at right side of scalp measuring 4" x 1½" x 4" deep in nature. The injuries are of within six hours. The injuries are caused by hard object. The colour of injuries are blood in nature. The injury report was prepared by him is his pen and signature the same has been Exhibited as Ext. 3. The nature of the injury was opined to be grievous in nature. The supplementary report was also prepared by him and the same was Exhibited as Ext. 3/1. The injury report of Firdaus Ansari was prepared by Dr. RP Singh and the witness also identified it and the same was Exhibited as Ext. 3/2. The CT Scan report of Firdaus Ansari was also identified by him and the same was Exhibited as Ext. 3/3. 8. The prosecution has also adduced documentary evidence as under: I. Exhibit -1 – Endorsement on written application. II. Exhibit-2- Formal F.I.R. III. Exhibit-3 –Injury report IV. Ext.3/1-Supplementary injury report V. Ext.3/2- Signature of Dr. R.P. Singh on injury report of Firdaus Ansari. VI. Ext.3/3-Signature of Dr. R.P. Singh on CT Scan report 9. After conducting full-fledged trial, the learned Trial Court has 2026:JHHC:19150 6 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 544 of 2021 acquitted 5 accused out of the 7 charge-sheeted accused and convicted and sentenced the two appellants as aforesaid. 10. On the basis of evidences brought on record, learned counsel for the appellants has made the following submissions: a. The cross examination of the witnesses clearly suggests that except the victim, nobody is eye witness to the occurrence. b. Even as per the victim, the manner of commission of crime and the place of occurrence does not get corroboration by the medical evidence or by the Investigating Officer. c. For the same set of evidences, five accused persons have been acquitted while these two appellants have been convicted without assigning any reason. d. Even the time and nature of injury as disclosed by the doctor P.W.8 through medical evidence totally mismatched with the prosecution story as disclosed by P.W.1 to P.W.6. e. It has also been admitted by the prosecution evidence that parties are on litigating terms and the simple injury caused to the victim may be accidental, but the same has been misused to rope in the appellants and other accused persons. On the above basis, it has been submitted that the entire prosecution story is doubtful and major portion of the evidence has been disbelieved by the Court below also and in such doubtful scenario, the judgment of conviction is bad in law. 11. Learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court. It has been submitted that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses clearly suggest that due to theft of mango committed by the accused persons, this incident has 2026:JHHC:19150 7 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 544 of 2021 taken place in front of masjid and all the prosecution witnesses have supported the allegation. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that : I. P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 who have claimed that they were with the victim at the time of namaz but they could not disclose the name of the imam. Further on scrutiny of evidence, it is clear they are not the eye witness of the incident. Even the injury disclosed by them does not match with the medical evidence. II. The sequence of events i.e. time of F.I.R and time of the incidence narrated by P.W.5, who is the mother of the victim, does not match testimony of other witness. Even as per her statement she does not appear to be an eye witness to the incident. III. Even the victim has clearly disclosed that he has been hit upon head several times by the two appellants by tangi and iron rod. So far as other accused are concerned, that has been disbelieved by the Court below itself. IV. The present appellants who have been convicted on the statement of the victim that they have assaulted himwith iron rod and tangi several times, does not match with the medical evidence I.e., P.W.8 V. Even the time of injury does not match. VI. It has been admitted by the victim that there was previous enmity. VII. Except the physical examination by the first doctor, nothing has been brought on record to further elaborate the injury. 13. Thus, this Court finds that there is no enough material to convict the appellants under Section 308 IPC by taking aid of Section 34 IPC. The incident itself is doubtful as neither the time nor place of 2026:JHHC:19150 8 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 544 of 2021 occurrence gets proved rather the time of injury has been opined by the doctor to be of 6 hours. There are several discrepancies as per reporting time of the police and intervention by the police. 14. In view of above discussion, this Court finds that there is no evidence to convict the appellants under Section 308/34 of the IPC. Accordingly, judgment of conviction dated 30.11.2021and order of sentence, dated 09.12.2021 passed in Sessions Trial No. 185 of 2018 arising out of Margomunda P.S. Case No. 53 of 2017, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Deoghar are quashed and set aside. 15. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed. The appellants are on bail, hence they are discharged from the liability of their bail bond. 16. Let the trial court record be sent back to the court below forthwith. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) A. Mohanty Jharkhand High Court Dated 30.06.2026 Uploaded ___/____/2026