1

Cr. Appeal (SJ).375 of 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.375 of 2006

(Against the Judgment of Conviction and order of sentence dated 03.03.2006

passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC-V), Deoghar in Sessions Case

No.163 of 2004 arising out of Deoghar P.S. Case No. 06/2004, G.R. Case No.

29/2004, Deoghar, Jharkhand)

Anil Yadav

…

Appellant

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

…

Respondent

---

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

---

For the Appellant

: Mr. Sudhansu Kr. Deo, Advocate .

For the State

: Mr. V.S. Sahay, A.P.P.

12/25.04.2022

This appeal is preferred against the Judgment of Conviction and

order of sentence dated 03.03.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions

Judge, (FTC-V), Deoghar in Sessions Case No.163 of 2004, whereby and

where under, the sole appellant was held guilty under sections 186, 353

of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC” for the sake

of brevity) though he is acquitted from charge under sections 332, 307

of IPC. He was sentenced to undergo R.I. for three months and a fine of

Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) under Section 186 of IPC and in default

of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo one month

imprisonment. Further the appellant was directed to undergo R.I. for

two years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) under

section 353 of IPC, and in case of default of payment of fine, he was

further directed to undergo imprisonment for three months.

2.

The prosecution story arose in the wake of written application of

the informant Anuj Kumar (PW-1), District Commandant; Deoghar

addressed to the officer In-charge Nagar Thana, Deoghar on 10.01.2004

which is as under:

The informant Anuj Kumar stated that on 09.01.2004 at about 6.10

p.m., he arrived at the Home Guard picket located in the premises of

General Post Office, Deoghar and in course of inspection found Guard

commandant

Anil

Yadav

(appellant)

and

Assistant

Guard

Commandant Rohit Singh absent from their duty. It has further been

alleged by the informant in the written report that both of them

including the appellant arrived later on and upon query made by the

2

Cr. Appeal (SJ).375 of 2006

informant that both the guard commandants should not leave the

picket simultaneously, upon which, Anil Yadav (appellant) objected

and told him as to whether this is the time for making inspection? It

has further been alleged that the language of the appellant was

indisciplined and uncontrolled and he further stated that his driver

Ratan Kumar (PW -8) and his bodyguard Janardan Kapri (PW- 2) tried

to pacify the accused appellant Anil Yadav to maintain work ethic and

decorum, but the appellant started quarrelling and had an altercation

with them and when the informant tried to interfere, the appellant

altercated with him also and then the Jawans (constables ) present

there, removed the appellant from there. It has further been alleged

that the appellant thereafter went running to guard room and took the

loaded rifle and pointed towards the informant in firing posture and

then the constables present there interfered and protected him from

any untoward eventuality. It has further been stated by the informant

that he along with his driver and body guard reported the matter to the

S.P. after leaving the place on his Gypsy JH-40A-6400 and after

receiving his instructions; the loaded rifle was seized from the

appellant and deposited in the home guard lockup.

3.

On the basis of the said written report, a formal FIR was drawn

vide Deoghar P.S. Case No. 06/2004, under sections 332, 353, 186, and

307 of IPC and investigation of this case commenced. After completion

of the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted for the offence

under Sections 332/353/186/307 of IPC and after taking the

cognizance, the ca