2026:JHHC:21575 Cr. A.(SJ) No.1420 of 2005 Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 1420 of 2005 …… [Against the Judgment of conviction dated 18.11.2005 and Order of sentence dated 19.11.2005, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-VI), Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No.411 of 2000] …… Md. Asgar Son of Md. Mohan, resident of Makdampur, P.S. Parsudih, Jamshedpur, Dist. East Singhbhum. … Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sikandra Jama S/o Late Yar Mohammad R/o Makdampur, P.S.- Parsudih, P.O. – Parsudih (Makdampur) District – East Singhbhum, State Jharkhand. … Respondents …… For the Appellant : Mr. Shadab Eqbal, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Shweta Singh, A.P.P …… P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA …… JUDGMENT C.A.V. on 29.06.2026 Pronounced on 20.07.2026 1. I have already heard the arguments advanced by Mr. Shadab Eqbal, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mrs. Shweta Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 18.11.2005 and order of sentence dated 19.11.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC- VI), Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No.411 of 2000, whereby 2026:JHHC:21575 Cr. A.(SJ) No.1420 of 2005 Page | 2 and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offences under Sections 304 Part II, 336 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for seven years along with fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C.; R.I. for three months for the offence under Section 336 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 147 of the I.P.C. with default stipulation. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 19.05.1999 at about 07:30 p.m., fardbeyan of informant Sikandar Jama was recorded wherein it is stated that on the same day, elder brother of the informant namely Saidul Jama was going towards his house and reached near the khatal of Md. Mahboob then all of a sudden, Md. Samsuddin @ Motu, Md. Babu bearing iron rods and Md. Piyazu, Md. Kasim and Md. Asgar (present appellant) holding lathi in their hands surrounded him and started assaulting by their respective weapons. It is alleged that the informant went to rescue his brother then Md. Mohan, Md. Shamim, Md. Nasim, Md. Tunna, Md. Rizwan, Md. Kamruddin and Akhtar Hussain 2026:JHHC:21575 Cr. A.(SJ) No.1420 of 2005 Page | 3 started pelting stones upon the informant. In the above incident, several local persons assembled and have also sustained injuries. It is further alleged that the informant's brother was brought to M.G.M. Hospital for treatment where he succumbed to injuries. The motive behind the occurrence is that the informant was nominated as Secretary of the Moharrum Akhara to which accused persons were agitating and this occurrence took place. On the basis of above fardbeyan of the informant, Parsudih P.S. Case No.84 of 1997 was registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307 and 302 of the I.P.C. 4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the present appellant along with others for the aforesaid offences. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions where Sessions Trial No. 411 of 2000 was registered. Altogether nine accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and trial proceeded against them. 5. In the course of trial, altogether 16 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Apart from oral testimony of 2026:JHHC:21575 Cr. A.(SJ) No.1420 of 2005 Page | 4 witnesses following documentary evidence has also been adduced. Exhibit 1 : Injury Report of Sikandar (Informant) Exhibit 2 : Post-mortem Report 6. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by defence. The case of defence is denial from occurrence and false implication due to previous dispute and scuffle. 7. The learned Trial Court after scrutinizing the evidence available on record, acquitted six accused persons namely Md. Mohan, Md. Tuna, Md. Fakruddin, Md. Shamim, Md. Nasim and Md. Akhtar from the charges due to lack of evidence. The present appellant along with Md. Kasim and Md. Piyazu, was held guilty for the offence under Section 304 Part II, 336 and 147 of the I.P.C. and other co-convict namely Md. Kasim and Md. Piyazu were held guilty for the offences under Sections 336 and 147 of the I.P.C. Only present appellant has assailed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed against him. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that on the basis of same allegation and evidence Md. Kasim and 2026:JHHC:21575 Cr. A.(SJ) No.1420 of 2005 Page | 5 Md. Piyazu were held guilty for the offences under Sections 147 and 336 of the I.P.C. The main assailant of deceased namely Md. Samsuddin @ Motu and Md. Jahiruddin have been died during pendency of trial and proceeding against them was dropped. While accused persons namely Md. Mohan, Md. Tuna, Md. Fakruddin, Md. Shamim, Md. Nashim and Md. Akhtar have been acquitted due to suppression of allegation by the prosecution against them. It is further submitted that present appellant has been claimed by witnesses was pelting stones and fleeing away. There is no evidence regarding direct participation of the appellant in assaulting the deceased by lathi or any other weapon. The learned Trial Court has assigned no reason as to how the appellant was held guilty for the offence under Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. Although, in the same breath Md. Piyazu and Md. Kasim have been held guilty only for the offences under Sections 336 and 147 of the I.P.C. It is further submitted that the appellant has not been held guilty with aid of Section 149 of the I.P.C. and there is no iota of evidence that the appellant exclusively has given murderous assault to the deceased. Since, out of nine persons tried in this case, 2026:JHHC:21575 Cr. A.(SJ) No.1420 of 2005 Page | 6 only three persons have been convicted and sentenced. Therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove any unlawful assembly with any particular common object as defined under Section 141 of the I.P.C. and acted in prosecution thereof while committing the alleged offence. In the alternative, it is submitted that the learned Trial Court has observed at the time of hearing on the point of sentence that the present appellant's date of birth is 24.07.1980 and on the date of occurrence, he was 17 years old and it was his first offence. The learned Trial Court without assigning any special reasons has declined to extend the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the appellant to which he deserve. 9. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State defending the judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant has submitted that the learned trial Court has very wisely and aptly considered all the materials available on record and rightly convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 304 Part II, 336 and 147 of the I.P.C. and has not committed any illegality or infirmity in passing the impugned judgment which does not call for any interference 2026:JHHC:21575 Cr. A.(SJ) No.1420 of 2005 Page | 7 in this appeal, which is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed. 10. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment and order in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side. 11. The only point for consideration is that as to "whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant suffers from any serious error of law calling for any interference in this appeal ?" 12. Before embarking upon adjudicating the above points, it is pertinent to take brief resume of the evidence available on record. 13. It appears that altogether 16 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, out of them, P.W.1 Abdul Wahid Ansari, P.W.2 Md. Yasin, P.W.3 Md. Kallu Quraisi, P.W.4 Md. Mazid, P.W.5 Sanjay Kumar Mahto, P.W.6 Md. Mahboob, P.W.7 Md. Salim, P.W.10 Pir Mohammad and P.W.11 Akabari Began have been declared hostile by the prosecution expressing complete ignorance from the factual aspects of this case. P.W.8 Md. Abbas has stated that on 19.05.1997 at about 02.30 p.m., he heard hullah from his house and came out then saw 2026:JHHC:21575 Cr. A.(SJ) No.1420 of 2005 Page | 8 that Saidul Jama was being assaulted by Md. Motu, Babu, Asgar and others due to which he fell down. Several villagers rushed towards the house of Asgar raising alarm. In the meantime, pelting of stones is started due to which Sultan also sustained injuries. In his cross-examination, this witness clearly states that how many lathi blow was sustained by Saidul Jama, he could not see. The occurrence took place at the khatal of Mahboob Mian at that time stones were not pelted. P.W.9 Md. Sharif has also stated that the occurrence took place at the khatal of Mahboob Alam where Saidul Jama was being assaulted by Asgar, Motu @ Samsuddin by lathi and danda. Thereafter, pelting of stones started from both party against each other. Saidul was brought to hospital but died. In his cross-examination also, he reiterates that he saw Asgar and Mahboob while assaulting to deceased by lathi and danda. P.W.12 Md. Shamsher was also proceeding to the place of occurrence near khatal of Mahboob Mian after hearing hullah where he saw Babu, Motu and Asgar were assaulting 2026:JHHC:21575 Cr. A.(SJ) No.1420 of 2005 Page | 9 to Saidul Jama. When he reached to the place of occurrence along with other person then above accused persons started fleeing away by pelting stones upon them. Saidul Jama was brought to hospital but he died during treatment. He has denied the involvement of accused Fakruddin and Tuna but has denied their participation in the occurrence. In his cross-examination, he admits that he runs a shop of tea and breakfast which opens in the early morning at about 05:00 p.m. and continued till night. He along with his father works at his shop and denied the suggestion of defence that he himself is an accused for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. therefore, giving a false evidence and has seen nothing. P.W.13 Farida Begam is the wife of deceased. According to her evidence on 19.05.1997 at about 02:30 p.m., her husband after taking lunch went out for attending his shop. Thereafter, she head hullah and went towards khatal of Matlub and saw that Asgar, Piyazu, Motu, Babu and Kasim were assaulting her husband by danda, chain, rod etc. due to which her husband fell down sustaining blood injuries on his neck and hand. When other villagers and her family 2026:JHHC:21575 Cr. A.(SJ) No.1420 of 2005 Page | 10 members reached at the place of occurrence, the accused persons started pelting stones on them due to which Sultan andGudiya have sustained injuries. Her husband was brought to hospital but died. In her cross-examination, she has denied the suggestion of defence that on the date of occurrence, she was not present rather had gone to Sherghati and returned after four days of occurrence. P.W.14 Dr. D.K. Sinha has examined the injured Sikander Bux on 19.05.1997 at about 07:30 p.m. and found following injuries on his person :- (i) Lacerated wound ½" x ½" x ¼" over right side of face. (ii) Lacerated wound ½" x ½" x ¼" over forehead. Above injuries have been opined to be simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. In his cross-examination, this witness admits that above injuries may be caused due to fall on rough surface. P.W.15 Dr. Lallan Chaudhary has proved post-mortem report of the deceased Md. Saidul Jama conducted by Dr. Renu Bala, who was head of Department of Forensic 2026:JHHC:21575 Cr. A.(SJ) No.1420 of 2005 Page | 11 Medicine at M.G.M. Jamshedpur and found following ante mortem injuries on his person:- (i) Five lacerated stitched wound, one abrasion and two contusion externally and internally. Fracture of left 5th and 6th ribs and right side 2nd, 3rd and 4th ribs with bleeding in chest cavity. Contusion of left kidney with laceration of left renal artery, the abdominal cavity is full of blood and clots. Above injuries are opined to be ante mortem caused by hard and blunt substance. Cause of death due to shock and bleeding. Time since death 12 hours to 24 hours. Post-mortem Report is marked as Ext.2. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he cannot say the age of stitched wound. He has further stated that the above ante mortem injury can occur due to fall of height. P.W.16 Sikandar Jama is the informant of the case. He has also claimed that after hearing hullah, he went to the khatal of Mahboob Mian and saw his brother was lying in injured condition and from a distance of 100 ft., Motu, Babu, Piyazu, Kasim and Asgar armed with lathi were fleeing away. He has further stated that with the help of villagers, he 2026:JHHC:21575 Cr. A.(SJ) No.1420 of 2005 Page | 12 brought his brother to hospital. In the meantime, Motu @ Md. Samsuddin, Piyazu, Babu, Md. Dolo and others started pelting stones due to which he also sustained injuries. He was also sent to M.G.M. Hospital for treatment. His brother died during treatment at M.G.M. Hospital. He has proved his signature on his fardbeyan as Ext.3. In his cross-examination also, he reiterates that when he reached at the place of occurrence his brother was lying on earth in injured condition. Therefore, he has not stated about actual participation of any of the accused persons in assaulting his brother as stated in the F.I.R. 14. From the aforesaid evidence of witnesses, it is crystal clear that the prosecution witnesses have tendency to suppress the material facts as well as the participation of real culprits in the First Information Report. The informant Sikandar Jama @ Bux (P.W.16) has named about nine accused persons and also stated the motive behind the occurrence due to dispute regarding election of Secretary of the Moharrum Akhara. It was also alleged that 7-8 accused persons armed with lathi, danda, rod etc. were assaulting to his brother but purposely only three persons including the present appellant 2026:JHHC:21575 Cr. A.(SJ) No.1420 of 2005 Page | 13 has been named by him as assailant of his brother. Other witnesses of facts have also not disclosed the name of all the other co-accused persons about nine in number involved in the said occurrence. P.W.15 is the wife of the deceased, has also given elasticity to the occurrence as an eye witness but confined the number of accused persons involved in assaulting her husband rather when she went to the place of occurrence, she saw her husband was lying injured under pool of blood. It is also surfaced that pelting of stones started from both side and deceased was an old person who fell down due to crowd of people and has sustained injuries. There is no specific evidence about the role of present appellant in the alleged occurrence except pelting stones. The other co-accused who were also involved in pelting stones namely Md. Piyazu and Md. Kasim have been held guilty only for the offence under Section 147 and 336 of the I.P.C. It is here to be observed that the prosecution witnesses have deliberately withheld the name of main assailants of the deceased rather adhered its case only against three accused persons and have also failed to prove any unlawful assembly constituted by more than five or more accused persons with 2026:JHHC:21575 Cr. A.(SJ) No.1420 of 2005 Page | 14 any particular common object as defined under Section 141 of the I.P.C. Therefore, the conviction for the offence under Section 147 of the I.P.C. by the learned Trial Court is absolutely unwarranted in this case and beyond the evidence available on record. No role for assaulting the deceased has been attributed against the appellant in clear terms. Therefore, the appellant alone cannot be held guilty for the offence under Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. particularly when other co-accused persons have either been acquitted or their names are suppressed by the prosecution witnesses showing their no involvement. As such, conviction of the present appellant for the offence under Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. is also not sustainable. There is no statement of the informant that he sustained injury through pelting stones by the present appellant. 15. In view of above discussion and reasons, I find that the prosecution has not been able to bring on record the clear picture of the case. It also transpires from the record that some accused persons were arrested and found injured in the same occurrence which has also not been explained by the prosecution. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant by the 2026:JHHC:21575 Cr. A.(SJ) No.1420 of 2005 Page | 15 learned Trial Court for the offence under Section 304 Part II, 147 and 336 of the I.P.C. appears to be based on beyond the weight of evidence available on record and non-consideration of the entire facts and circumstances proved by the prosecution during trial giving go by to the earliest version of the informant contained in his fardbeyan. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of the appellant passed by the learned Trial Court is hereby set aside and this appeal is allowed. 16. The appellant is on bail, hence, he is discharged from liability of bail bond and sureties are also discharged. 17. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. 18. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court record be sent back to the concerned Trial Court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 20/07/2026 Sachin / NAFR Uploaded On: 22/07/2026