2026:JHHC:9990 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.20 of 2019 [Against the judgment of conviction dated 06.12.2018 and the order of sentence dated 07.12.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge, F.T.C., Bokaro in Sessions Trial Case No.320 of 2008] ---- Lal Babu Yadav aged about 35 years S/O Late Mehendra Yadav, Resident of Co-operative Khatal, P.O. & P.S. B.S. City, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand …. …. Appellant(s) Versus The State of Jharkhand …. …. Respondent(s) ---- PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Appellant(s) : Mr. N.K.Sahani, Adv. For the State : Mrs. Lily Sahay, A.P.P. ---- By Court: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant(s) and learned counsel for the State. 2. The present criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction dated 06.12.2018 and the order of sentence dated 07.12.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, F.T.C., Bokaro in Sessions Trial Case No.320 of 2008, whereby the appellant has been held guilty and convicted for the offence under Sections 448, 323/34, 386/34, 307/34 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months under Section 448/34 of IPC, R.I. for two years with fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence under Section 386/34 of IPC, S.I. for six months for the offence under Section 323/34 of IPC and R.I. for three years for the offence under Section 307/34 of IPC with a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, sentenced to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months each. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 01.06.2008 at about 22:45 hours, one Umesh Prasad gave his fardbayan before the police of B.S. City Police Station at the clinic of Dr. N.K.N. Sinha. He stated therein that on the same evening, while he was making payment to his labourers at his residence 2026:JHHC:9990 Page | 2 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.20 of 2019 situated near Ansari Cycle Shop, 185, Co-operative Colony, P.S. B.S. City, the accused persons, including Shailesh Yadav, arrived there armed with daggers and other weapons and demanded ‘rangdari’ (extortion money) from him. Upon his refusal to comply with their demand, accused Shailesh Yadav began assaulting the informant. When the informant’s brother, Raju Kumar, intervened, the said accused inflicted a dagger blow on his stomach. Another brother of the informant, Madhav, who also attempted to intervene, was assaulted by the accused with a dagger on his hand. The other accused persons assaulted the informant with fists and slaps. Thereafter, the accused persons forcibly snatched a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from the informant. Upon the arrival of local people, the accused fled away from the place of occurrence. Subsequently, the injured brothers of the informant were treated at a clinic, and thus the present case arose. 4. On the basis of the written report of the informant, the present criminal case has been put into motion by lodging an FIR being B.S. City P.S. Case No.161 of 2008 under Sections 448/ 386/ 387/ 326/ 307/ 323/34 of IPC against the appellant. 5. This appellant has not been named in the F.I.R. The police after investigation had submitted charge-sheet and accordingly cognizance has been taken and ultimately on culmination of the trial the appellant has been convicted under Sections 448/34, 386/34, 323/34, 326/34 and 307/34 of IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To substantiate the prosecution story, altogether eleven witnesses have been examined. P.W.-1-Ram Awatar Sao, who is aged about 55 (vegetable vendor), has deposed that on 01.06.2008 at about 7:30 P.M., while his son Umesh was paying remuneration to the labourers, the accused persons came there and demanded rangdari. Upon refusal, accused Shailesh Yadav stabbed his son Raju in the abdomen, and when his other son Madhav intervened, he was also assaulted with a dagger on his shoulder. Both were seriously injured and taken for treatment—Madhav to Dr. N.K.N. Sinha and Raju to BGH. He further stated that the accused snatched ₹5,000 from Umesh. 2026:JHHC:9990 Page | 3 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.20 of 2019 He identified Lal Babu Yadav and Hari Yadav, while claiming to identify the others. In cross-examination, he admitted that his son was engaged in contract work and that Lal Babu Yadav and Hari Yadav were running a khatal (milk business). P.W.-2-Manoj Kumar, deposed that on 01.06.2008 at about 7:00 P.M., upon hearing a commotion, he reached the place of occurrence and found his brother Raju lying down with bleeding injuries, while Madhav had also sustained a dagger injury. He was informed by the others present there that Shailesh Yadav had assaulted them and fled away. He also stated that Hari Yadav, Lal Babu Yadav, and Shyam Sunder Yadav were involved in the alleged crime and were seen escaping. He took Raju to the hospital on a thela, where he was later referred to BGH and then to Vellore, Tamil Nadu for treatment. He attributed the occurrence to a dispute over demand of rangdari from his brother Umesh, who is a contractor. He identified Hari Yadav and Lal Babu Yadav. In cross-examination, he has admitted that he did not witnessed the assault himself and came to know about it from others present. He saw the accused from a distance in lantern light and confirmed that around 15–20 persons were present. He also stated that Raju was unconscious for two days. P.W.-3-Raju Kumar, the injured witness, deposed that on 01.06.2008 at about 7:00–7:30 P.M., the accused persons came armed with daggers and demanded money (rangdari) from his brother Umesh. When he intervened, Shailesh Yadav stabbed him twice in the abdomen, while Shyam Sunder Yadav held him from behind and instigated the assault. He further stated that Hari Yadav and Lal Babu Yadav also assaulted him with fists. He sustained serious injuries requiring 25–26 stitches and was taken to Dr. N.K.N. Sinha, who referred him to BGH. He identified Lal Babu Yadav and claimed to identify the others. 2026:JHHC:9990 Page | 4 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.20 of 2019 In cross-examination, he has stated that he did not faint immediately but became unconscious during stitching. He confirmed heavy bleeding at the spot and presence of several persons at the place of occurrence. No major contradictions emerged. P.W.-4-Dr. Naveen Kumar Sinha has deposed that his private clinic runs as Shanti Health Care Hospital. On 01.06.2008, he treated Madho Kumar in an injured condition and marked the injuries on the medical prescription and also proved it (Ext-1). In cross examination he has deposed that the person who brought Madho in the clinic is not known to him. He does not informed the police before treatment and also does not remember the person who told him to prepare injury report. The injury may be due to fall on sharp edged object. The period of injury has been opined as two hours on the condition of bleeding. Further, police has not made any inquiry from him. P.W.-5-Salim Khan, deposed that on 01.06.2008 at about 7:00 P.M., while he was watching a cricket match near Umesh’s house, the accused persons arrived and demanded money. When Umesh’s brothers, including Raju, intervened, Shailesh Yadav stabbed Raju in the abdomen and Madhav was also assaulted with a dagger on his shoulder. Both injured were then taken to the hospital. He identified Lal Babu Yadav and claimed to identify the other accused. In cross-examination, he stated that he had been present at the place of occurrence for 15–20 minutes prior to the incident and all the accused came together. P.W.-6- Dr. Surendra Prasad Choudhary, deposed that Raju Kumar was admitted to BGH on the night of 01/02.06.2008 and proved the admission and medical records (Exhibits 2–5). Upon examining and operating the patient, he found stab wounds in the inguinal region causing, internal bleeding (haemoperitoneum), injury to the jejunum, and 2026:JHHC:9990 Page | 5 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.20 of 2019 retroperitoneal hematoma. He opined that the injuries were grievous in nature and caused by a sharp weapon. In cross-examination, he initially stated that he had no personal knowledge of the patient as he relied on records, but later clarified upon recall that he was in fact the operating surgeon and had deposed earlier by mistake due to the old nature of the case. He explained discrepancies in documents and maintained that the injury reports and records were prepared based on hospital records and his treatment. P.W.-7-Dr. Manish Kumar, deposed that on 08.06.2008 at about 11:45 P.M., while posted in the casualty department of BGH, he examined and admitted Raju Kumar, who had sustained knife injuries. He found lacerated wounds on both inguinal regions with fresh bleeding, caused within six hours. He prepared the injury report (Exhibit-6) and admission form (Exhibit-3), and admitted the patient to the surgical department, where he was later operated upon by Dr. S.P. Choudhary. In cross-examination, he stated that the admission form contains limited details and some omissions (like age) were inadvertent. He clarified that separate injury reports are prepared by the admitting and operating doctors and denied any suggestion that the documents were manipulated. P.W.-8-Noor Alam, deposed that at the time of occurrence, he saw a crowd at Co-operative Colony and came to know that Shailesh Yadav and Hari Yadav had quarreled with Raju. However, he did not support the prosecution case further and was declared hostile. P.W.-9-Dhiraj Kumar, deposed that on 01.06.2008 at about 7:00–7:30 P.M., while he was watching TV, the accused persons came and demanded rangdari from his brother Umesh, who was paying remuneration to the labourers. Upon resistance, Shailesh Yadav stabbed Raju in the abdomen, and when Madhav intervened, he was also assaulted with a dagger. The other accused assaulted with lathi, danda, and fists. Raju was firstly taken to Dr. Sinha’s clinic and then referred to 2026:JHHC:9990 Page | 6 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.20 of 2019 BGH. He identified Lal Babu Yadav and proved the seizure list of the dagger (Exhibit-7). In cross-examination, he admitted that he came to the spot after hearing noise and saw Raju already injured, with neighbours present. He also stated that he and his brothers live together and that Lal Babu Yadav runs a milk business. P.W.-10-Umesh Kumar @ Umesh Prasad, the informant, deposed that on 01.06.2008 at about 6:00 P.M., while he was paying labourers, the accused persons came and demanded rangdari. Upon refusal, they assaulted him, and when his brothers Raju and Madhav intervened, Shailesh Yadav stabbed Raju in the abdomen and also injured Madhav. He further stated that ₹5,000/- was snatched from him during the incident. Raju was first taken to Dr. N.K.N. Sinha and then referred to BGH. He proved the fardbayan (Exhibit-8) and also identified all the accused. In cross-examination, he has admitted that Lal Babu Yadav runs a milk business and that he himself is a petty contractor. He also stated that his statement was recorded by the police on the same day and subsequently. P.W.-11-Geeta Devi, wife of the informant, deposed that upon hearing commotion, she came out and saw the accused assaulting her husband and demanding rangdari. When Raju and Madhav intervened, Shailesh Yadav stabbed both of them, causing serious injuries to Raju and injuries to Madhav. The injured were taken to Dr. N.K.N. Sinha, and Raju was later referred to BGH. She identified all the accused persons. In cross-examination, she has stated that when she reached the spot, 20–30 persons had already gathered and she saw Raju lying injured and Madhav sitting. No further significant facts emerged. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment and submitted that so far as Section 448 IPC is concerned, it is not made out because there is no allegation of trespass. Section 386 IPC also not gets attracted as prosecution story is regarding robbery not extortion. So far Sections 2026:JHHC:9990 Page | 7 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.20 of 2019 323 and 307 IPC are concerned, there is improvement in version of the witnesses as the appellant was known to them, as has been admitted in their cross-examination, but still he is not named in the F.I.R. 8. It has been further submitted that this applicant does the business of milk and due to the money dispute, he has been falsely implicated in the present case. I.O. has not been examined in the present case and as such the appellant could not cross examined the witness so far as improvement in the statement is concerned. 9. It has been further submitted that there is exaggeration as two person has been shown injured but only one injury report is on the record and that too is simple in nature. Although the accused has stated that, he has got 24-25 stiches but not a single stiches is present rather wound is lacerated in nature. 10. Learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of conviction and has submitted that the witnesses have clearly stated about participation of this appellant and as such he has been convicted on the strength of Section 324 of the IPC. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, this Court finds that: i. The ingredients of Section 448 and 386 IPC are not present and as such conviction under the above sections per se bad in law and accordingly, it is, hereby, set aside. ii. So far as conviction under Section 323 and 307 are concerned, there is an injury to P.W.-3 but there is an exaggeration in the statement of witnesses and although this appellant is known to the witnesses prior to the incident rather he is one of the neighbour, still he is not named in the F.I.R. 12. Considering the statements of the witnesses, this Court finds that there is an improvement and there is clear cut arena of doubt, so far as participation of this appellant in commission of alleged crime is concerned. 13. Considering the above facts, the conviction under Section 323 and 307 IPC also set aside. 14. In view of the above discussion, the judgment of conviction dated 06.12.2018 and the order of sentence dated 07.12.2018 passed by the learned 2026:JHHC:9990 Page | 8 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.20 of 2019 Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, F.T.C., Bokaro in Sessions Trial No.320 of 2008 is, hereby, quashed and set aside. 15. In the result, the present criminal appeal stands allowed and accordingly disposed of. 16. The appellant is on bail and as such he is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds. 17. Let the Trial Court Records be sent to the court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this judgment. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) The Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi Dated: 08th April, 2026 Shahid/NAFR Uploaded on 16.04.2026