The prosecution failed to prove the charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt due to material contradictions and insufficient evidence.

JUDGMENT :

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1.Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.03.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jamtara in Sessions Case No. 198/2000 and Sessions Case No. 18/2004 (arising out of Jamtara P.S. Case No. 196 of 1998), whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty and sentenced for the offence under Sections 147, 323, 341, 353, 333, 427, 379 / 511 of the I.P.C.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that one Jagat Narayan Singh, S.I. Jamtara Police Station Camp Dhandhara lodged a written report on 19.10.1998 stating inter alia that he has received telephonic information from Electrical Supply Sub- Station, Jamtara that some criminals are likely to cut and steal wire of Chitra Mines. In order to verify the matter, the informant along with armed forced namely, Hawaldar Ramashrya Singh, Constable No. 290 (P.W.-2), Thakur Dayal Yadav (P.W.-7), Constable No. 655, Sadan Singh (P.W.-1) and private driver of Jeep No. WMC-8702 namely, Biseswar Sah (P.W.-6) proceeded towards the spot. It is further alleged that when police force reached near Dhandhara village, they saw a man moving under suspicious circumstances. Therefore, S.I. Jagat Narayan Singh asked him as to why he is moving here at odd time i.e. 23 hours in night then the person told his name as Ganesh Mondal @ Gansa and reply in blunt manner therein to police personnel to mind their own business and also started arguing with police party, thereafter proceeded towards Dhandhara road. The informant along with police party went towards road near the police jeep, where 8-10 persons surrounded the police party and started abusing and assaulted the informant with fist and slaps and also tried to snatch the riffle. It is further alleged that in the meantime, Ganesh Mondal @ Gansa and Nimai Mondal struck lathi on Constable Thakur Dayal Yadav and other Constables, resulting in grievous injuries to Thakur Dayal Yadav. It is further alleged that when the informant tried to pacify the accused persons, they abused the informant, torn his uniform and tried to snatch away his revolver. It is further alleged that with a view to meet out situation, the driver of the jeep was directed to give telephonic message to police station from Electricity Department and then Officer-in-Charge Satish Chander Das and other police force came to the place of occurrence, then accused persons fled away.

4. On the basis of written report of informant (Exhibit-1), formal FIR was registered and after investigation of the case, charge sheet was submitted against the aforesaid appellants for the aforesaid offences. The case was committed to the court of Sessions. Charges were read over and explained to the accused persons and upon denial the trial commenced.

5. In course of trial, altogether seven witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, following documentary evidences have been brought on record:-

Exhibit-1 : Written Report.

Exhibit-1/1 : Endorsement on written report for registration of case.

Exhibit-2 : Signature of the then Officer-in-Charge.

Exhibit-3 : Injury slip of Thakur Dayal Yadav.

Exhibit-4 : Injury Report of Thakur Dayal Yadav.

6. The case of defence is denial from occurrence and false implication. However, no oral and documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the learned trial court has miserably failed to take into notice the material contradictions and infirmities appearing