SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Jhk) 1890

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Jitendra Singh @ Monu @ Jitendra Kumar Singh & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 202 of 2006
Decided On : 04-12-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Yadunandan Mishra

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 326/149/148 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 313 - Investigation - Punishment - Case as unfolded in of informant is that informant was standing on road near Mama Hotel at More and talking to his younger brother namely Anil Kumar Singh appellant accused person came with co-accused person in a Bullet motorcycle and co-accused since deceased) came with gun sitting on pillion of said Bullet motorcycle along with who was armed with hockey stick other co-accused persons variously armed came riding a YEZDI motorcycle and some other accused persons came in a car- Bullet motorcycle dashed informant by which informant fell down- When his younger brother namely Anil Kumar Singh came to help informant he was stabbed on his abdomen- Anil also fell down on road at which appellant-accused persons along with co-accused fled away- While fleeing away Singh was threatening of dire consequences and threatened to kill- informant and his brother-Anil sustained injuries and they were brought to hospital –Held, Court their statements recorded There is absolutely no evidence in record regarding appellant-accused having committed any overt act in alleged offence- only allegation against other appellant accused Singh is that he dashed with motorcycle- There is no evidence regarding any other overt act committed by him Court is of considered view that this is a fit case where appellant-accused persons namely and Singh be acquitted of all - charges for which they have been convicted by giving them benefit of doubt- Accordingly appellant-accused persons are acquitted of all charges punishable and impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial being not sustainable in law is- set aside- Perusal of record reveals that appellant-accused persons and are on bail- In view of their acquittal they are discharged of liabilities of their bail bonds - Appeal allowed

JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 17.01.2006 and order of sentence dated 18.01.2006 passed by the leamed Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Bokaro in Sessions trial No. 116 of 1994 whereby and where under, the appellants have been held guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 326/149/148 of Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Sections 326/149 of Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 148 of Indian Penal Code and further have been fined for Rs. 1,000/- each with default clause.

3. The brief fact of this case as unfolded in the fardbeyan of the informant is that on 31.10.1991 at 9.30 a.m. when the informant was standing on the road near the Mama Hotel at Jodhadih More and talking to his younger brother namely Anil Kumar Singh, the appellant-accused person Chintamani Singh came with the co-accused person in a Bullet motorcycle and the co-accused Lalan Singh (since deceased), came with gun sitting on the pillion of the said Bullet motorcycle along with Anup Kumar, who was armed with hockey stick. The other co-accused persons variously armed came riding a YEZDI motorcycle and some other accused persons came in a car. The Bullet motorcycle dashed the informant by which, the informant fell down. When his younger brother namely Anil Kumar Singh came to help the informant, he was stabbed on his abdomen. Anil also fell down on the road, at which, the appellant-accused persons along with the co-accused fled away. While fleeing away, Lalan Singh was threatening of dire consequences and threatened to kill. The informant and his brother-Anil sustained injuries and they. were brought to hospital. The police recorded Jardbeyan of the informant at Bokaro General Hospital. On the basis of the Jardbeyan of the informant, police registered Chas P.S. case No. 153 of 91 and took up the investigation of the case.

4. After completion of the investigation, police submitted the police report. The case was committed to the Court of Session and charges for the offences punishable under Sections 307/147 of IPC were framed against the accused appellant-Jitendra Singh and charges for the offences punishable under Sections 147 and 325 of IPC were framed against the other accused appellant-Chintamani Singh and upon the appellant-accused persons pleading not guilty to the charges, they were put to trial.

5. In support of its case, the prosecution has altogether examined six witnesses. Out of the six witnesses examined by the prosecution PW 3-Sachidanand Singh is the informant of the case. He has stated that the occurrence took place on 31.10.1991 at 9.30 a.m. He was standing on the western side of the Dhanbad-Purulia road near Mama Hotel. His younger brother Anil Kumar Singh (PW 2) came there and he was talking to him. At that time, one Bullet motorcycle and one YEZDI motorcycle and a car came from Jodhadih' More. The appellant-accused Chintamani Singh was riding the Bullet motorcycle. He dashed PW 3 with the said motorcycle and PW 3 fell down. Lalan Singh and Anup Kr. Singh were on the pillion of Bullet motorcycle and after getting down; they assaulted PW 3 with lathi and hockey stick. PW 3 sustained injuries on both his legs, head and shoulder. The co-accused Anup Singh stabbed Anil Singh on his abdomen, chest and shoulder and injured him. Thereafter, Lalan fired from a gun and fled away. The persons from nearby place took PW 3 and PW 2 to the hospital. Police recorded the statement of PW 3 in hospital. On being proved by PW 3, his signature on the Jardbeyan was marked as Exhibit. PW 3 identified the accused person in the Court. In his cross-examination, PW 3 has stated that there was hot exchange of words between the appellant -accused persons with PW 2 in respect or their transport business,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top