2026:JHHC:21562 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1155 of 2008 ------ Ramesh Prasad Sah, Son of Shri Ramshankar Sah, Resident of Village-Nawadih Basukinath, P.S. – Jarmundi, Dist. Dumka … .... …. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ... .... .... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate Ms. Maksuda Khatun, Advocate For the Resp. State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT C.A.V. on 30.06.2026 Pronounced on 21.07.2026 1. Heard the arguments of learned Sr. counsel for the appellant and learned Spl.P.P. 2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.08.2008 passed by learned 5th Addl. Sessions judge (FTC), Dumka in Sessions Case No. 72 of 2007, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 341, 504, 427 and 353 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years each, for the offence under Section 504, 427 and 353 of the IPC along with a fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation. No separate sentence was passed under Section 341 of the IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Factual Matrix:- 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the informant Nagendar Sah (P.W.-2) is the driver of Deputy Commissioner, Dumka Office. On 12.06.2006, he was in official 2026:JHHC:21562 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1155 of 2008 2 duty with learned S.D.J.M., Dumka (P.W.-6), Nayeb Nazir Santosh Kr. Sah (P.W.-1) and other peons namely Sudesh Kr. Srivastava (P.W.-5) and Pitambar Sharma (P.W.-7) proceeded to Basukinath Temple by a TATA Sumo Govt. Vehicle bearing registration No. BR-12A-3467 for making arrangement of offering puja by Hon’ble Justice I.P. Singh in said Temple. It is further alleged that at about 7:00 AM, they reached near Basukinath Barrier and asked the persons present thereto to remove the Barrier because it was a government vehicle and they were on official duty. Then, one of the persons from the Barrier approached to them with a register and asked to enter their names, addresses and vehicle number. Upon this, learned S.D.J.M. made required entry in the register and started proceeding further. It is alleged that the person who got entry in registry was enraged and started abusing them. When he was forbade from abusing by the judicial officer, then, they proceeded towards Basukinath Temple and near Durga Temple, they found the road was blocked due to repairing work. So, they returned the vehicle and again went towards the Barrier, then the same person again came with Danda and started beating on the vehicle causing damage of glass of the vehicle (window pan). Anyhow, the vehicle reached at Bungalow of Forest Department. Then, the said person went near the temple road and started abusing them again. The matter was informed to police officer by one of the peon, then 2026:JHHC:21562 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1155 of 2008 3 police arrived and caught hold of the said person. Upon interrogation, he disclosed his name as Ramesh Prasad Sah, resident of Village Nawadih, P.S. Jarmundi, Dist. Dumka. On the basis of above information, Jarmundi P.S. Case No. 93 of 2006 was registered against the above named accused person for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 307, 504, 427, 353 of the I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 of G.P.D.P. Act. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused person for the aforesaid sections. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where Sessions Case No. 72 of 2007 was registered. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In the course of trial, altogether 8 witnesses were examined by the prosecution:- P.W.-1 Santosh Kr. Sah P.W.-2 Nagendar Sah P.W.-3 Parmesh Kumar Gan P.W.-4 Santosh Kumar Tiwari P.W.-5 Sudesh Kr. Srivastava P.W.-6 Sri Shiv Pal Singh (Ld. S.D.J.M., Dumka) P.W.-7 Pitambar Sharma P.W.-8 Upendar Nath Rai 5. Apart from oral testimony, several documentary evidence has also been adduced by the prosecution:- 2026:JHHC:21562 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1155 of 2008 4 Ext.1 Signature of informant on written application. Ext.1/1 to 1/4 Signatures of Santosh Kr. Sah, Parmesh Kr. Gan, Pitambar Sharma and Sudesh Kr. Srivastava on the written application. Ext.1/5 Forwarding of SDJM on the written application Ext. 1/6 Endorsement on written application Ext.2 Formal F.I.R. 6. On the other hand, no oral of documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the defence except statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denying the manner of occurrence and plea of innocence. 7. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on record, found the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offence and sentenced him as stated above. Submissions on behalf of appellant: - 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is not sustainable in the eye of law as the informant in his examination-in-chief has stated that it was a 12 years boy who had given a register to the judicial officer for making entry and thereafter that boy abused, altercation took place and official vehicle was damaged but the appellant who has been apprehended in this case was of 33 years old man at the time of occurrence, therefore, the prosecution has totally failed to bring cogent, consistent and definite evidence on record with 2026:JHHC:21562 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1155 of 2008 5 respect to the occurrence which creates doubt regarding the identity of the accused person. It is further submitted that there is contradiction in material particulars in the testimony of the witnesses, which also cast doubt on the prosecution. The learned trial Court has committed gross error of law in convicting a wrong person instead of real offender of the occurrence, which is fit to set aside and this appeal may be allowed. Submissions on behalf of the State 9. On the other hand, learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State controverting the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellant, submitted that there is direct allegation against the appellant that he has abused the judicial officer and other staffs and damaged the government vehicle. 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: 10. I have gone through the record of case along with impugned judgment in the light of contentions raised on behalf of respective parties. 11. The sole point for determination in this appeal is “as to whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant suffers from any error of law, which requires any interference in this appeal?” 2026:JHHC:21562 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1155 of 2008 6 12. 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. P.W.-1 Santosh Kumar Sah, a passenger in the official vehicle, has deposed that after making entry in the registry by the judicial officer, the accused person abused. On being asked, he got furious and started abusing and when they proceeded to go further, they found the road was under construction and then turned the vehicle back towards the Barrier to reach Forest Dept. Bungalow, then, 5-6 persons armed with Lathi attacked the vehicle resulting damage of front body and back glass. In his cross-examination, He has admitted that he may commit mistake in identifying the accused person. P.W.-2 Nagendar Sah is the informant of this case. According to his evidence, the incident occurred on 12.06.2006 at about 7AM, when he was travelling from Dumka to Basukinath in a TATA Sumo, Govt. Vehicle accompanied by the Judicial Magistrate, District Nazir, Santosh Kumar Sah and two peons. When they reached near the toll tax Barrier across the Basukinath Police Station, then, they told the people present at the Barrier to lift the Barrier. Then, they asked for tax and this witness said that this is a government vehicle. Then, 12 years boy gave a register to the Judicial Magistrate and the entry was made in the register. 2026:JHHC:21562 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1155 of 2008 7 Then, the 12 years boy abused. Upon this, the judicial officer ordered to stop the vehicle and two peons came out with Nazir and said, take that boy to the police station and scuffle took place. Thereafter, they took the vehicle towards Basukinath Temple and due to under-construction road, they returned back, meanwhile, 4-5 persons stopped the vehicle, the boy present at the Barrier started abusing them and hitting the vehicle with the Bamboo Stick and damaged the glass pan of the driving seat. Finally, they reached Forest Dept. Bunglow and the accused person was arrested. In his cross-examination, it is admitted that there was some scuffle between the brother of the present appellant and persons who were on official duty with the judicial officer. P.W.-3 Parmesh Kumar Goan is the assistant of Civil Court Dumka who has heard about the occurrence from Santosh Kumar Sah (P.W.-1). In his cross-examination, he admits that he is not an eye witness and cannot tell the vehicle number. P.W.-4 Santosh Kumar Tiwary has been declared hostile by the prosecution P.W.-5 Sudesh Kumar Srivastava has also reiterated the manner of occurrence who has deposed that Santosh Sah (P.W.-1) and Pitambar Sharma (P.W.-7) got simple injury due to bamboo blow by the accused person. 2026:JHHC:21562 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1155 of 2008 8 P.W.-6 Shiv Pal Singh, S.D.J.M., Dumka has deposed that he was to attend the Hon’ble Justice I.P. Singh who was coming to Basukinath Temple for offering Puja and in the way to Basukinath, there was Barrier where he made entry and got alighted as he was to meet a person i.e. D.C. of Godda, meanwhile, he heard Hulla from right side of vehicle and went and saw that driver and other staffs were quarreling with that boy. He went to pacify and started to proceed towards Basukinath Temple and due to under- construction road, got returned and when they again reached near Barrier, the person who was present there asked the driver to stop the vehicle holding bamboo and gave a blow on the bonnet of the vehicle and when they reached Basukinath Chowk, that boy was present and was arrested by the police personnel. P.W.-7 Pitambar Sharma has deposed that when they reached near Basukinath Barrier, 10-20 persons present there and were demanding Chanda. Then, they said that it is a government vehicle. From both the side there was abuse. When they were going towards temple the road was blocked so they returned back and as they reached another road, 20- 22 persons holding Danda and Stones attacked the vehicle damaging the glass. P.W.-8 Upendra Nath Rai is the officer-in-charge of Jarmundi Police Station who has proved endorsement on 2026:JHHC:21562 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1155 of 2008 9 written report in his writing and signature marked as Ext. 1/6 and also proved F.I.R. marked as Ext.-2. 13. From the aforesaid discussion of ocular testimony of witnesses, it is crystal clear that the allegation of hitting on the vehicle and damage of glass is committed by a 12 year boy. The witnesses of facts have given colorable statement regarding presence of accused person from five to twenty two in number who were involved in the scuffle with the staff of Civil Court, Dumka and the driver of the vehicle. A single person has been apprehended by the police and charge- sheeted in this case, happens to be elder brother of a boy aged about 12 years against whom all allegations has been attributed by the persons. The role of present appellant either in damaging vehicle or assaulting any staffs has not been proved by the prosecution. The main witness P.W.-6, S.D.J.M., Dumka who was also present in the vehicle has not attributed anything against the present appellant. It appears that the learned trial Court has overlooked the evidence of material witnesses in right perspective along with materials elicited in their cross-examination showing exclusive involvement of 12 years boy who intercepted them near the barrier, scuffled and also assaulted by Bamboo Stick on the vehicle but the said boy has not been made accused in this case, rather, his elder brother has been prosecuted. 2026:JHHC:21562 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1155 of 2008 10 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 against the present appellant is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted from the charges leveled against him and this appeal is allowed. 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: 21/07/2026 Basant / NAFR Uploaded On: 22 /07/2026