Additional Judicial Commissioner - VI, Ranchi in Sessions v. The State of Jharkhand

Judgment

1. Heard Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, learned counsel for the State.

2. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 11.03.2019 and order of sentence dated

16.03.2019, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner – VI, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No.212 of

2017, arising out of Chanho P.S. Case No.07 of 2017 (G.R. No.390 of 2017), whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 452/ 342/ 323/ 324/ 307 of the Indian Penal code (in short IPC) and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five - 1 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.401 of 2019 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- each with default clause for the offence under Section 307 IPC, simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 323 IPC, simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 342 IPC, simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 324 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.4,000/- each with default clause for the offence under Section 452 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The prosecution story, in short, as per the informant is that on 09.01.2017 at about 9.30 PM after having dinner, he was sleeping after locking his door of his house. In the meantime, Aincho Oraon and Sukra Oraon came and they disconnected his electric line and after breaking the door, they entered into his house and assaulted him with intention to kill him by means of lathi and danda and fled away. Due to assault, he sustained injuries over his head and right eye. Blood was oozing therefore, he was brought to hospital for treatment in Chanho from where he was referred to RIMS, Ranchi for better treatment. Due to business he could not inform the matter timely and today he is lodging FIR to concerned police station. On the basis of written application of the informant, Chanho P.S Case No.07 of 2017 dated 22.01.2017 has been registered under Sections 452/ 342/ 323/ 324/ 307 IPC, against the present appellants and the police, after completing the investigation, has submitted the charge- - 2 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.401 of 2019 sheet against the above named two accused. The charge has been framed under Sections 452/ 342/ 323/ 324/ 307/34 IPC against the appellants. Thereafter, the case has been committed to the court of Sessions to which the appellants have pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried and accordingly, the trial has commenced.

4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined altogether 07 witnesses and their depositions, in short, are as follows:-

5. P.W.-1, Chilgu Oraon, is the informant of the case and he has supported the prosecution story. In his chief examination, he has stated that the accused have assaulted him due to which he sustained injury and for treatment he was admitted to the Chanho hospital. In cross-examination, he has admitted that both the accused are his nephew. At para – 7, he has admitted that dhibri (a small kerosene lamp) was burning in the room.

6. P.W.-2, Renu Oraon, is the daughter-in-law of the informant. She has stated that after the occurrence, her husband has informed the matter to police and thereafter, police came and took the injured to Chanho Hospital for treatment. In cross-examination, she has admitted that blood was on the earth as well as on the clothes, but the police has not taken the same. In para – 10, she has accepted that police came at the place of occurrence and took the informant to hospital on the same day of incident. - 3 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.401 of 2019

7. P.W.-3, Deepak Oraon, is the son of the informant. He has deposed that he has stated that he had informed the police regarding the incident on phone and the police came there at 2:00 A.M and took him along with his mother and father to the hospital. He has stated that his mother told him that the accused has assaulted his father. In cross-examination, he has accepted that he has not seen the occurrence.

8. P.W.-4, Dahuwa Orain and P.W.-5, Sushil Oraon, have been declared hostile.

9. P.W.-6, Dr. Alok Chandra Vikash, is the doctor and he has deposed that the injured was brought to RIMS on

09.01.2017. In cross-examination, he has admitted that the photocopy of discharge slip has been shown to him wherein the name of the patient is not clear, the date of discharge is also not clear. The age of the patient is also not mentioned in the injury report. He has also admitted that the injury report has not been prepared in his presence. He has further admitted that he has not seen the injury report as he has not done medical test upon the victim.

10. P.W.-7, Md. Imran Khan, is the investigating officer of the case and he has submitted the charge-sheet. In cross-examination, he has admitted that the case was registered on 22.01.2017 and cause of delay in lodging the case has not been disclosed. He has also admitted that the injured was treated when and where has not been - 4 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.401 of 2019 mentioned in the case diary.

11. On consideration of above materials on record, the trial Court has found the appellants guilty for the offence under Sections 452/ 342/ 323/ 324/ 307 IPC and sentenced them, as stated above.

12. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.

13. Learned counsel for the appellants while referring to the depositions of the aforesaid witnesses, available on record, has submitted that :- (i) the incident is dated 09.01.2017 and as per the witnesses, the police had come and then the injured was sent to hospital for treatment, but this factual matrix gets contradicted by the examination of the investigating officer, as the investigating officer has not stated like this, rather no such statement, given before the police, is available on the record. (ii) as per the doctor i.e. P.W.-6, the informant has been examined on 09.01.2017, but in the discharge slip and in the admission register, the date has been shown as 10.01.2017. The doctor, who has been examined, has neither examined the patient nor has prepared the injury report. (iii) neither the injury report nor the discharge slip is available on record. - 5 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.401 of 2019 (iv) the doctor i.e. P.W.-6 has himself stated that the photocopy of discharge slip has been shown to him wherein the name of the patient is not clear, the date of discharge is also not clear. The age of the patient is also not mentioned in the injury report. (v) the date of incident is 09.01.2017 while the F.I.R has been lodged on 22.01.2017 and no reason has been assigned for delay in lodging the F.I.R. (vi) the parties are the family members and reside in the same house and as per the witnesses, the informant has been assaulted by means of lathi and danda, but nothing has been seized by the police and further, no forensic examination is there. (vii) two independent witnesses, who have been examined, have been declared hostile. (viii) none is the eye witness to the incident, except the informant. (ix) the statement of the victim is also not reliable as he has stated that the dhibri (a small kerosene lamp) was lighted in the room, but other witnesses have not stated regarding that kerosene lamp in the room. On the above basis, learned counsel for the appellants has prayed that the judgment of conviction and order of - 6 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.401 of 2019 sentence be quashed and set aside and the appellants be acquitted.

14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence stating that the victim is an injured witness and he has stated about the injury caused by these appellants.

15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, it appears that :- (i) the incident is dated 09.01.2017 and as per the witnesses, the police was called and at the instance of the police the informant was sent to hospital for treatment, but this fact has neither been supported by the investigating officer nor there is any material available on record to corroborate such story. (ii) the incident is dated 09.01.2017 while the F.I.R has been lodged on 22.01.2017 and no reason has been assigned for such delay. (iii) neither the injury report is available on record nor the statement of the doctor, who has examined the injured, is not worth to be considered rather as per the doctor also the identity of the patient is doubtful. In such a scenario, the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained, as there is no proper evidence available on record. Thus, this Court finds that the Judgment of conviction - 7 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.401 of 2019 dated 11.03.2019 and order of sentence dated 16.03.2019, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner – VI, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No.212 of 2017, is not sustainable and accordingly, the same is, hereby, quashed and set aside.

16. In the result, the appeal stands allowed and accordingly disposed of.

17. The appellants are on bail, hence, they are discharged from the liability of bail bond.

18. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this Judgment. Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, the 11th June, 2026 Ravi-Chandan/- NAFR Uploaded on 16.06.2026 (Rajesh Kumar, J.) - 8 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.401 of 2019