2026:JHHC: 10159 Page | 1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 61 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 61 of 2019 [Against the judgment of conviction dated 13.12.2018 and order of sentence dated 17.12.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-Ist-FTC, Bokaro, in Sessions Trial Case No.227 of 2016, arising out of Pindrajora P.S Case No.38 of 2016, corresponding to G.R No.665 of 2016] Tarapad Tiwari, aged about 30 years, son of Sri Kant Tiwari, resident of Mouza-Silphore, P.O & P.S. Pindrajora, District Bokaro, Jharkhand …. …. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand …. …. Respondent --- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Appellant : Mr. N.K. Sahani, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, A.P.P. Dated: 09th April, 2026 1. Heard the parties. 2. The present Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 13.12.2018 and order of sentence dated 17.12.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st FTC, Bokaro, in Sessions Trial Case No.227 of 2016, arising out of Pindrajora P.S Case No.38 of 2016, corresponding to G.R No.665 of 2016, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 448/34, 341/34, 323/34, 324/24 307/34 & 325 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 325 IPC. In default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for two months. He has further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Sections 323/34 and 448/34 of the IPC each. He has further been sentence to undergo imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 341/34 IPC. Further, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 324/34 of the IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2026:JHHC: 10159 Page | 2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 61 of 2019 3. The brief facts of the case, as disclosed in the F.I.R., is that the informant submitted a written report before the police station stating that on 15.05.2016 at 07:00 A.M., his nephew namely, Vijay Tiwary along with Tarapad Tiwary and Urmila Devi entered his house and assaulted his wife namely, Sabarbala Devi and broken her leg. They also assaulted his son namely, Santosh Tiwari. When his daughter-in-law namely, Nisha Devi tried to save her husband namely, Santosh Tiwary, she was also beaten and attacked with a Tangi due to which, her finger was cut. The accused further threatened to kill the family members. They usually made assault and torture them. On the basis of above written report of the informant, the criminal law has been put into motion by lodging an F.I.R. being Pindrajora P.S Case No.38 of 2016, corresponding to G.R No.665 of 2016, against the appellant by the informant Raja Ram Tiwary dated 15.05.2016 registered for the offence under Sections 341/34, 323/34, 324/34, & 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the alleged incident occurred at about 07:00 A.M and the F.I.R was lodged at about 09:00 A.M on the same day. The police, after completing the investigation, has submitted the charge- sheet under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307 & 34 of the IPC. Accordingly, cognizance has been taken and charge has been framed under Sections 341/34, 323/34, 324/34, 448/34 & 307/34 of the IPC against the accused. Thereafter, the case has been committed to the court of Sessions to which the appellant has pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried. 4. For substantiating the prosecution's story, altogether seven (07) witnesses have been examined. 5. P.W.-1 Shivnandan Tiwari is an independent witness and he has been declared hostile. 6. P.W.-2 Sita Ram Tiwari is a hearsay witness. 7. P.W.3 Nisha Devi, is one of the injured witnesses, claiming that she sustained a cut injury caused by a Tangi blow. She has admitted that the parties are family members and partition of the property had already taken place. She 2026:JHHC: 10159 Page | 3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 61 of 2019 had denied the defence that the alleged injury was self-inflicted and the injury to Sabarbala Devi (her mother-in-law) has been caused due to fall. The doctor namely, Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Sinha, suggests that the injury of the Nisha Devi has been found simple in nature and it may be a self-inflicted injury. 8. P.W.-4 Rajaram Tiwari is the informant of this case. He has admitted that he is a hearsay witness and not eye-witnesses to the alleged occurrence. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that his daughter-in-law has injured during household works and his wife also inflicted injury due to saving her. 9. P.W.5 Santosh Tiwari is the husband of P.W.3 namely, Nisha Devi. He has claimed that he is also a victim and has sustained injury, but no injury report has been brought on record. Although, he has claimed that he received treatment in a hospital but even as per the Investing Officer, there is no injury report so far as this witness is concerned. He has admitted that they are family members and denied the suggestion that injury was accidental which has been exaggerated for the purpose of this case. 10. P.W.6 is Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Sinha. He has stated that he has examined the patient at 09:00 A.M. on 15.05.2016, whereas the alleged incident had occurred at around 07:00 A.M. He has opined that the age of the injuries was within 24 hours. He has further stated that the fracture injury has been declared as a grievous injury and another injury sustained by P.W.3 has been declared as a minor injury and it may be a self-inflicted injury. 11. P.W.7 Vijay Kumar Pandey is the I.O of this case. He has stated nothing, but in his cross examination, he has admitted that he has not taken the statements of all the injured witnesses. 12. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment of conviction on the following grounds:- 2026:JHHC: 10159 Page | 4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 61 of 2019 (i) The witnesses, who have sustained grievous injury namely, Sabarbala Devi is neither examined by the I.O, nor produced as a witness. She is only a capable witness which suggests that she had suffered injury due to actus rea committed by the accused persons. In the absence of her deposition, no criminality can be attached to the present appellant. There is no independent witness. Although, it has been suggested that several persons have assembled at the place of occurrence. Two independent witnesses have been examined, who have declared hostile. (ii) The I.O., himself has admitted that he has not taken the statements of all the injured witness. (iii) P.W.5 Santosh Tiwary is the husband of the P.W-3, has claimed himself as a victim and has suffered injury. He has got treated in the hospital, but no such injury report has been brought on record rather his claim has been negated by the doctor, who has been examined as P.W.6. (iv) It is a simple accidental injury suffered by the alleged victim (P.W.3) and Sabarmala Devi, and due to the family dispute, a false criminal case has been lodged which is evident from the fact. The doctor has opined the age of injury within 24 hours, while as per claim, he has reached before the Medical Officer within two hours. 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, stating that injured witnesses have supported the allegation. 15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the records, it appears that:- (i) The alleged victim, namely, Sabarmala Devi, has not deposed that she has suffered injury caused by the appellant. In the absence of her deposition, the allegation cannot be stated to be true. (ii) So far as the main witnesses i.e., P.W-3 and P.W.-5 are concerned, their depositions are full of contradictions. P.W.5 has 2026:JHHC: 10159 Page | 5 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 61 of 2019 claimed himself as an injured witness, but there is no injury report, rather the injury has been negated by the doctor P.W.6. (iii) The parties are relatives and the partition of the property had already taken place and there is also a family dispute between them. Thus, the false allegation cannot be made out. (iv) The age of injury as disclosed by the doctor also suggests that there is possibility of false accusation. 16. Since the witness are not reliable and there is arena of doubt regarding the time of injury itself and as such, this Court finds that the judgment of conviction dated 13.12.2018 and order of sentence dated 17.12.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st- FTC, Bokaro, in Sessions Trial Case No.227 of 2016, arising out of Pindrajora P.S Case No.38 of 2016, corresponding to G.R No.665 of 2016 is not sustainable. Accordingly, the same is, hereby quashed and set-aside. 17. In the result, the present Criminal Appeal stands allowed and accordingly, disposed of. 18. Since the appellant is already on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond. 19. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this judgment. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Dated: 09th April, 2026 Raja/- Uploaded on 16.04.2026