2026:JHHC:21550 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1162 of 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OFJHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1162 2007 --------- [Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 11.05.2007 and 15.05.2007 respectively passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Latehar in Sessions Trial Nos.142 of 2005/10 of 2006] --------- Rajesh Singh @ Tula Singh, son of Ram Jatan Singh, resident of village- Chiro, P.S.-Chandwa, District-Latehar …… Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand …. Respondent ---------- For the Appellants : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Spl.P.P. --------- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT ----------- CAV On 18.06.2026 Pronounced On 20/07/2026 1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Spl.P.P. 2. Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 11.05.2007 and 15.05.2007 respectively passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Latehar in Sessions Trial Nos.142 of 2005/10 of 2006, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under sections 395 read with sections 397, 398 and 353 of IPC and section 27 of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years for the offence under sections 395 read with sections 397 and 398 of IPC; R.I. for 2 years for the offence under 2026:JHHC:21550 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1162 of 2007 section 353 of IPC and R.I. for 2 years for the offence under section 27 of Arms Act. All sentenced were directed to run concurrently. Factual Matrix:- 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that during night patrolling duty by the police patrolling party, on 15.04.2005 about 1:30 am, near Chandwa Block at Chandwa Latehar Road at village Tudamu, the police force saw that a cut-tree was laying down on the road for blocking the same. In the headlight of the police vehicle, the police personnels identified the accused persons as Baldev Oraon @ Lambu and Rajesh Singh (present appellant), son of Ram Jatan Singh of village-Chiro Maintoli and 8 to 10 unknown miscreants armed with pistol, bombs, torch, sicker and sticks. The miscreants assuming the police vehicle to be a public vehicle flashed a torch light with a view to commit dacoity and asked to stop the vehicle. But just coming to know that it was the police jeep, then one of the miscreants raised alarm and other miscreants threw bombs on the police vehicle but bomb did not explode. Thereafter, the miscreants shot fire on the police personnels. It is further alleged that in defence, the police started counter firing on the order of superior police officer present there, which continued for five minutes. Thereafter, the miscreants tried to escape, the police chased the miscreants but they succeeded in fleeing away. It is further alleged that in the morning, the police party recovered two live bombs, one shawl in violate color, one cap bearing mark “M” in red color, one black cap with inscription “International Evening”. It is alleged that in presence of 2026:JHHC:21550 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1162 of 2007 two independent witnesses, namely, Kandru Ganjhu and Munnu Pahan, the above articles were seized and the seizure list was prepared. Besides the above material, one pair of hawai chappal, one iron chain was also recovered from the place of occurrence. 4. In course of investigation, other co-accused, Muneshwar @ Kalia Ganjhu was arrested and he was put on T.I. Parade and was identified by the witnesses as perpetrator in the alleged crime. 5. On the basis of above written report of the informant, Chandwa P.S. Case No.32 of 2005 was registered for the offence under sections 398, 307 and 333 of IPC, section 27 of Arms Act and sections 3/4 of Explosive Substance Act. After completion of investigation, charge- sheet was submitted against accused persons and the case was committed to the court of Sessions on different dates. Accordingly, S.C. No.142 of 2005 and S.C. No.10 of 2006 were taken together for trial in connection with all altogether 9 accused persons including the present appellant. The accused persons have denied the charges leveled against them and claimed to be tried. 6. In course of trial, altogether 14 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, namely:- P.W.1-Munnu Pahan P.W.2-Kandru Ganjhu P.W.3-Rajendra Prasad Singh P.W.4-Ashok Kumar Tiwari P.W.5-Jagarnath Ganjhu 2026:JHHC:21550 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1162 of 2007 P.W.6-John Munda P.W.7-Bindo Kumar Tiwari P.W.8-Ravindra Kumar Roy P.W.9- S.I. Suresh Prasad Singh P.W.10-Ramdhani Singh (I.O.) P.W.11-Ramsunder Lal P.W.12-Umesh Prasad Singh P.W.13-Chandar Choubey P.W.14-Manchal Kumar Mishra 7. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, the following documentary evidences have been adduced by the prosecution. Ext.1-Signature of Munu Pahan on seizure list Ext.2-T.I.P. Chart Ext.3-Self statement Ext.4-Endorsement on self-statement Ext.5-Formal FIR Ext.6-Seizure list Material Ext.I-Chappal Material Ext.II to II/1-Two pieces of cap Material Ext.III-Shawl Material Ext.IV-Sikar (Iron Chain) 8. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. 2026:JHHC:21550 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1162 of 2007 9. Learned trial court after scrutinizing the evidence available on record adduced by the prosecution arrived at conclusion that P.W.9, S.I. Suresh Prasad Singh has specifically identified the accused, Rajesh Kumar Singh and accused, Muneshwar @ Kalia Ganjhu was also identified during T.I. Parade. Therefore, both the accused persons were found guilty for the offence under sections 397, 398 and 353 of IPC and the accused, Rajesh Singh has further been held guilty for the offence under section 27 of Arms Act. Other 7 accused persons, namely, Bishnu Ganjhu, Polus Topno @ Praveen, Mohan Ganjhu, Ganesh Ganjhu, Sikandar Ganjhu, Fuldeo Ganjhu and Naresh Ganjhu were acquitted due to lack of evidence against them. 10. Criminal Appeal(SJ) No.842 of 2007 was preferred by the accused, Muneshwar Ganjhu @ Kalia before this Court and due to death of the above appellant, the appeal was abated vide order dated 13.04.2026. Submission on behalf of appellant:- 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that there was no occasion to identify by the sole witness, P.W.9-S.I. Suresh Prasad Singh at the time of occurrence, which happened at 1:30 am in the dead night but this appellant was dragged in this case with intention to add a new case against him because the appellant was already accused in Chandwa P.S. Case No.68 of 2003 for the offence under section 395/412 of IPC. Therefore, name, parentage and full address of the appellant has been disclosed in the FIR itself. Except, P.W.9, who happens to be S.I. of Police at Chandwa P.S., none of the witnesses 2026:JHHC:21550 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1162 of 2007 examined by the prosecution had been able to identify the present appellant showing his involvement in the alleged occurrence. The appellant was never put on T.I. Parade. Admittedly, the appellant was not arrested on spot rather subsequently, he was arrested in this case but no incriminating articles were recovered from his possession showing his involvement nor even any pistol has been alleged to be recovered by which he fired upon the police personnels. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of the appellant only on the basis of tainted evidence of P.W.9- Suresh Prasad Singh is not justified under law and fit to be set aside, allowing this appeal. Submission on behalf of State:- 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted with learned counsel for the informant has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and submitted that learned trial court after appreciating the evidence available on record has very wisely and aptly recorded the findings of the guilt of the appellant for the offence under sections 395 r/w 397, 398 and 353 of IPC and under section 27 of Arms Act, which has been proved conclusively and requires no interference in this case, which is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed Analysis, Reasons and Decision:- 13. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment and order in the light of the contentions raised on behalf of both side. 2026:JHHC:21550 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1162 of 2007 14. The only point for determination in this appeal is that “as to whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant passed by learned trial court suffers from any error of law calling for any interference in this appeal?” 15. Before adjudicating the above point, it is necessary to take brief resume of oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution to substantiate the charges leveled against the appellant. P.W.1-Munna Pahan is the seizure list witness and he has proved his signature on seizure list marked as Ext.1. However, in cross- examination, he has denied the recovery of any articles in his presence and declared hostile. P.W.2-Kandru Ganjhu is also a seizure list witness and he has been declared hostile. P.W.3-Constable, Rajendra Prasad Singh was a member of patrolling party. According to his evidence, on 15.04.2005 during patrolling duty at night, he along with other police forces reached Duramu Ghati and found the road was blocked. He has further stated that the miscreants seeing the police vehicle started throwing bombs, stones and shot fire. The police forces had also fired in counter and from the place of occurrence, slippers, chain were recovered. In cross-examination, this witness has identified the Muneshwar Ganjhu @ Kalia in T.I. Parade and also in court. This witness has denied the suggestion of the defence that in his re-statement, he did not claim to identify any of the miscreants. On the day, the 2026:JHHC:21550 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1162 of 2007 accused was arrested by the police and he was in the police station but no T.I. Parade was held. It is not fact that after identifying the accused in police station, he identified the accused in T.I. Parade. This witness has identified the accused as the person, who threw the bomb. P.W.4-Ashok Kumar Tiwari is also a member of patrolling party and he has supported the testimony of P.W.3- Const. Rajendra Prasad Singh. This witness has claimed to identify one of the miscreants in the light of the vehicle and later on he identified the accused, Muneshwar Ganjhu behind the dock. This witness has not participated in the T.I. Parade. There is nothing else in his cross-examination. P.W.5-Jagarnath Ganjhu has been declared hostile as he has claimed to identify the accused, Rajesh Singh, Kalia Ganjhu, Anil Tirki, Fuldeo Ganjhu, Mohan Ganjhu, Naresh Ganjhu, Bishunu Ganjhu and three to four others during investigation but in court at the time of deposition, he declined to have given any such statement before the police. P.W.6-Johan Munda, who has also claimed to identify the accused, Fuldeo Ganjhu, Rajesh Singh, Kalia Ganjhu, Anil Tirki, Baldeo Uraon, Naresh Ganjhu and Bishunu Ganjhu and others while they were fleeing away from the place of occurrence during investigation but he did not support this fact in the court and declared hostile. P.W.7 Vinod Kumar Tiwari was Munsif-cum-J.M. 1st Class, Latehar. According to his evidence, on 27.07.2005, T.I. Parade 2026:JHHC:21550 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1162 of 2007 was conducted under his supervision with respect to the suspect of Chandwa P.S. Case No.32 of 2005 as per order of learned CJM, Latehar within premises of Sub-Jail, Latehar. All suspects were put on T.I.P on the ratio of 1/9 on the similar height and color. During course of T.I. Parade, witness, Umesh Prasad Singh (P.W.12) identified the accused Muneshwar @ Kalia Ganjhu. Another witness, Rajendra Prasad Singh (P.W.3) has also identified the accused, Muneshwar Ganjhu @ Kalia as suspect and stated that he threw bomb upon him. This witness also identified another accused, Ramesh Uraon, who was not suspect in this case. This witness proved T.I.P chart marked Ext.2. P.W.8-Ravindra Kumar Rai is officer-in-charge of Chandwa Police Station. According to his evidence, on 15.04.2005, while he was on patrol duty along with S.I. Suresh Prasad Singh (P.W.9) and other home-guards, they saw a tree lying down on the road blocking the same. He has further stated that in the head light of the police vehicle, he identified Baldeo Uraon @ Lambu having pistol and stick in his hand. S.I. Suresh Singh identified Rajesh Singh, son of Ramjatan Singh of Chiro Maintolla, P.S.-Chandwa, District-Latehar. This witness has also identified other accused persons by face. This witness has further stated that the accused after identifying the vehicle as police vehicle, started throwing bomb, which was not exploded and other accused shot fire at patrolling party. Then in counter, the police shot fired on the accused. He further stated that the police forces chased to apprehend the accused persons but they succeeded in fleeing away 2026:JHHC:21550 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1162 of 2007 from the place of occurrence taking the advantage of dark night and dense forest. On the next day morning, from the place of occurrence, two country made bomb, one violet color woolen saal, one raid cap over which ‘M’ was written, one black cap over which ‘international evening’ was written, one pair of chappal and one iron chain were recovered. This witness has recorded self-statement and identified his self-statement marked as Ext.4. He also proved the formal FIR marked as Ext.5. He has also proved seizure list prepared by S.I. Suresh Singh on his dictation marked as Ext.6. In cross-examination, this witness admits that he has identified the accused from 15 yards. P.W.9 S.I. Suresh Prasad Singh is also a member of patrolling party and he has supported prosecution story. He has identified the appellant, Rajesh Singh. He has identified the writing and signature over the seizure list marked as Ext.6. He has also produced the material Exts, which are two pair chappal marked as Ext.I, two caps marked as Material Ext.II and II/1, woolen saal marked as Material Ext.III and one chain(iron) was marked as Ext.IV. In cross-examination, he admits that all the material exhibits were brought before the court wrapped in the paper. This witness further admits that the accused, Rajesh Singh was arrested with respect to Chandwa P.S. Case No.68 of 2003 under section 395 and 412 of IPC. P.W.10- Ram Dhani Singh is the Investigating Officer of this case. During investigation, he has arrested the accused, Muneshwar 2026:JHHC:21550 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1162 of 2007 Ganjhu @ Kalia Ganjhu and recorded the confession of the accused. He recorded the statement of the witnesses. This witness has also arrested other accused, Rajesh Singh, Mohar Ganjhu, Naresh Ganjhu, Bishunu Ganjhu, Pollus Toppno, Ganesh, Sikandar Ganjhu and Fuldeo Ganjhu and after finding sufficient evidence against the accused persons, submitted charge-sheet. He identified all the accused behind the dock. In cross-examination, he stated that this is not fact that he has not inspected the place of occurrence nor seized any articles was placed before him. P.W.11-Rameshwar Lal is also a member of patrolling party and deposed nothing new as deposed by other witnesses, who are members of patrolling party. P.W.12-S.I. Umesh Prasad Singh has also supported the prosecution story. He has participated in the T.I. Parade and identified one accused, Muneshwar Ganjhu @ Kalia Ganjhu and also identified the accused behind the dock. In his cross-examination, he admits that the day, the accused was arrested, he was in the police station but he did not identify the accused in the police station. He further admits that he was not among the police party, who caught the accused. P.W.13-Chandhan Chaubey is also a member of patrolling team and supported the self-statement of the complainant, Ravindra Rai (P.W.8). He has identified the accused, Muneshwar Ganjhu @ Kalia Ganjhu behind the dock. 2026:JHHC:21550 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1162 of 2007 In his cross-examination, he admits that he has identified the miscreants but did not participate in the T.I. Parade. P.W.14-Manchal Kumar Mishra has proved the self- statement marked as Ext.3 and also investigated the case. This witness inspected the place of occurrence and proved the recovery of two live bombs wrapped with sutli, one violet color saal, one cap red color over which ‘M’ was written and one black cap over which ‘international’ was written and one pair chappal and iron chain from the place of occurrence, which were kept in the Thana Malkhana. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he cannot say that Rajendra Singh claimed to have identified the miscreants but Ashok Kumar Tiwari did not claim to identify the miscreants. Umesh Prasad Singh has also not claimed to have identified the miscreants. Witness, Chandhar Dubey also did not claim to have identified the miscreants. This witness has supported the case but did not claim to identify the miscreants. Suresh Singh and Ravindra Rai claimed to have identified the miscreants. 16. The purpose of a prior test identification is to test strengthen the trustworthiness of that evidence. Thus T.I.P. is a safe rule of prudence generally to look for corroboration of the sworn testimony of witnesses in court as to the identity of the accused, who are stranger to them, in the form of earlier identification proceeding but in the instant case only P.W.9-S.I. Suresh Prasad Singh, who was the member of patrolling party, has claimed to have identified the appellant at the place of 2026:JHHC:21550 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1162 of 2007 occurrence with the name, parentage and full address of the appellant, no other members of patrolling party have claimed to identify the appellant. It also appears that the appellant was previously known to P.W.9 due to being an accused in another case being Chandwa P.S. Case No.68 of 2003 under sections 395 and 412 of IPC, but other witnesses, who were the member of patrolling party, have no occasion to identify the appellant. It further appears that two independent seizure list witnesses, who have been examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2, have been declared hostile and also not corroborated the factum that the articles were seized in their presence. The informant, Ravindra Kumar Roy (P.W.8) has stated in his self-statement that on the date of occurrence, he only identified the accused, Muneshwar Ganjhu @ Kalia, however, S.I. Suresh Prasad Singh (P.W.9) has identified the accused, Rajesh Singh (appellant). Therefore, the conviction of the appellant is only based upon the testimony of the P.W.9, who is a police personnel and member of patrolling party, but not corroborated by any independent witnesses. The conviction of the accused based upon the testimony of Suresh Prasad Singh (P.W.9) is not barred but at the same time conviction of the accused on the sole testimony of the police personnel without corroboration from other witnesses does not inspire confidence to convict the appellant. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion and reasons, I find that learned trial court has committed serious error of law by convicting the appellant for the charges leveled against him without properly appreciating the 2026:JHHC:21550 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1162 of 2007 evidence. Therefore, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 11.05.2007 and 15.05.2007 respectively passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Latehar in Sessions Trial Nos.142 of 2005/10 of 2006 is, hereby, set aside and the appellant is acquitted from the charges leveled against him. This appeal is allowed. 18. The appellant is on bail. He is discharged from liability of his bail bonds and sureties are also discharged. 19. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly. 20. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Date: 20/07/2026 Pappu/-N.A.F.R. Uploaded on 22 /07/2026