Uma Shankar Singh @ Lallu Singh v. The State of Jharkhand

1. Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.P.P.

2. Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12.04.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions, F.T.C. 4th, Deoghar in Sessions Case No.41 of 1996, whereby and whereunder, both the appellants have been held guilty for the offence under section 452 of IPC and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. 3 years along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation and Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.502 of 2005 1 appellant No.1 has further been held guilty and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years for the offence under section 27 of Arms Act along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Factual Matrix:-

3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that one Guru Chourasia offered for purchase of land belonging to the informant but was not ready to pay the entire consideration amount, therefore, the informant refused to sell the landed property to Guru Chourasia. It is further alleged that with a view to forcibly grab the land of the informant, the accused persons (appellants) invited the informant for inauguration of a hotel but due to non-completion of work of the building, the inauguration was postponed but the accused persons forcibly brought the informant to Agrawal Saw Mill and obtained his signature on a piece of paper containing statement that the informant had taken a loan of Rs.1,90,700/-. It is further alleged that on the date of occurrence i.e. on 25.07.1995 at about 7:30 am, all the four accused persons including the present appellants came to the house of the informant. Accused, Uma Shankar Singh armed with revolver fired at the informant with intention to kill him but anyhow, he saved himself. The accused persons threatened the informant but when the villagers assembled, the accused persons fled away. Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.502 of 2005 2

4. On the basis of above written report of the informant, Deoghar P.S. Case No.157 of 1995 was registered for the offence under sections 447, 307/34 of IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against four accused persons and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions where S.C. No.41 of 1996 was registered.

5. One of the accused persons, namely, Awadhesh Singh was declared absconder vide order dated 14.12.2001 and later on accused Guru @ Umesh Chourasia was also absconded and the case was separated and after passing order under sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C., he was declared absconder.

6. The present appellants have denied the charges leveled against them and claimed to be tried.

7. In course of trial, altogether 4 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, namely:- P.W.1-Gopal Kumar Sinha P.W.2-Lakhan Lal Pandit P.W.3-Manoj Kumar Sinha (Informant) P.W.4-Sishir Kumar Topno

8. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, following documentary evidences have been adduced by the prosecution. Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.502 of 2005 3 Ext.1-Written report with signature of Manoj Kumar Sinha (Informant)

9. On the other hand, the defence has also examined one defence witness, namely, Manoj Kumar (D.W.1), who has proved two letters written by the informant as Ext. A and A/1. The defence has also adduced certified copy of charge-sheet submitted by the police in Deoghar P.S. Case No.154 of 1985 marked as Ext. B. The case of defence is denial from the occurrence and false implication.

10. Learned trial court after evaluating the evidence available on record held the appellants guilty for the aforesaid offences and sentenced them as stated above, which has been assailed in this appeal. Submission on behalf of appellants:-

11. Assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that admittedly there was no dispute between the appellants and the informant regarding purchase of land. The appellants have falsely been implicated in this case being friends of Guru @ Umesh Chourasia. It is further submitted that P.W.1-Gopal Kumar Sinha is samdhi of the informant, who happens to be a chance witness as managed by the informant to testify in his favour. P.W.2 Lakhan Lal Pandit is a private tutor and he heard some loud noise and assumed the same to be caused by fire-arms and stated nothing about the occurrence. P.W.3 is the informant, who has not produced any paper signed by him Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.502 of 2005 4 purported to be a loan transaction. P.W.4-Sishir Kumar Topno is also the neighbour of the informant and a hearsay witness. It is further submitted that the occurrence is alleged to have happened in front of the house of the informant, therefore, offence under section 452 of IPC is not attracted in this case. The appellants have been acquitted from the charge under section 307/34 of IPC. There is no concrete evidence to prove any firing and no empty cartridges were recovered from the place of occurrence. It is out and out a false case against the appellants. The conviction of the appellants on the sole testimony of the informant without any corroboration from any other independent source, is absolutely illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case. No grudge or enmity has been alleged against the appellants furnishing any motive for commission of alleged offence rather there was dispute between the informant and Guru @ Umesh Chourasia. The appellants have no concern with the purchase of land of the informant or ever attempted to grab the landed property of the informant. Learned trial court has miserably failed to properly appreciate the evidence of the informant, which does not constitute any offence against the appellants. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants is liable to be set aside, allowing these appeals. Submission on behalf of State:- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.502 of 2005 5

12. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. controverting the aforesaid arguments submitted that there is no substance in the points of arguments raised by the appellants. Learned trial court has very wisely and aptly considered the overall factual aspects of the case, which has been proved by the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants calling for any interference in these appeals, which is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed Analysis, Reasons and Decision:-

13. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment and order in the light of the contentions raised on behalf of both side.

14. The only point for determination in this appeal is that “as to whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants passed by learned trial court suffers from any error of law calling for any interference in this appeal?”

15. Before adjudicating the above point, it is necessary to take brief resume of oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution to substantiate the charges leveled against the appellants. The star witness in this case is the informant, Manoj Kumar Sinha, who has been examined as P.W.3. According to his evidence; on 25.07.1995 at about 7:30 am, while he was at his house, he Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.502 of 2005 6 heard a call from the outside, then he came out and saw four persons were at his varanda, namely, Lallu Singh @ Uma Shankar Singh, Bipin Singh, Awadhesh Singh and Guru Chourasia and they started abusing him. He further stated that Uma Shankar Singh pointed out a pistol on him and fired but he bent down, therefore, the pellet shot on the wall of the house. Several villagers, hearing the sound of firing, arrived at the place of occurrence, and then accused persons fled away. He has proved his written report as Ext. 1. This witness has further deposed that he was desiring to sell his house and Guru Chourasia assured him to manage some customers but he was delaying the transactions and adequate consideration amount was also not being paid. He further stated that on

12.07.1995, Guru Chourasia called this witness for inauguration of Basera Hotel and he went there but plaster work was still due, hence, inauguration was postponed. Thereafter, he was brought by Guru Chaurasia to Agrawal Saw Mill, where other three accused persons were already sitting and they forcibly got his signature on a paper containing a loan amount of Rs.1,90,700/- and left him at about 11:40 pm. In his cross-examination, this witness states that two occurrences took place with him. He further admits that he has not seen the plaster work of Basera Hotel. He also admits that the loan paper was written by him on the dictation of Lallu Singh without raising any Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.502 of 2005 7 protest. He also admits that from Agrawal Saw Mill, Deoghar Police Station is at the distance of 400-500 ft. but due to night, he did not lodge any report rather a proceeding under section 107 Cr.P.C. was initiated on his report lodged at Kunda Police Station. He also admits that he came to know about the present appellants through Guru Chaurisia about two months prior to the occurrence. He has denied the suggestion of the defence that he himself caused blast of some fire crackers and falsely implicated the accused persons in this case. P.W.1-Gopal Kumar Sinha is the Samidhi of the informant. According to his evidence, on 25.07.1995 in the morning at about 10:15 am, while he was offering puja in his house, he heard sound of firing, thereafter, he came out from the house and went to the house of the informant P.W.3, where he saw the informant in perplexed situation and the informant told him that four persons came to his house and one Lallu Singh has fired upon him. This witness saw the accused from behind while they were fleeing away. There is nothing else in his cross- examination. P.W.2-Lakhn Lal Pandit was giving tuition to the children in the house of Manoj Kumar Sinha, then he heard sound of fire whereupon he came out and saw the accused persons fleeing away, whose name were disclosed by the informant, Manoj Kumar Sinha. He has not claimed to identify any miscreants. Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.502 of 2005 8 P.W.4-Sishir Kumar Topno is also a hearsay witness and has heard the sound of firearm, whereupon he came out from his own house and saw four persons were fleeing away. The informant had said that Lallu Singh, Awadhesh Singh, Bipin Singh and Guru Chourasia have come to his house with intention to kill him. He has not claimed to identify any of the accused persons. There is nothing else in his cross- examination.

16. From the aforesaid discussion of prosecution evidence, it appears that admittedly, there was dispute regarding purchase of landed property of the informant by the main accused, Guru @ Umesh Chourasia from the informant. The transactions could not be finalized due to paucity of fund. Except the informant (P.W.3) none of the witnesses have been able to prove the factual background of the case in between the informant and the accused nor they have been able to identify any of the miscreants and have testified about the names of the accused persons as disclosed to them by the informant. Admittedly, no empty cartridges were found from the place of occurrence and due to non-examination of the Investigating Officer, the place of occurrence has not been proved properly. The alleged loan paper signed by the informant has also not been produced and not a single money transaction has been proved against the appellants. The informant has miserably failed to establish any material against the present appellants showing either any grudge or Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.502 of 2005 9 enmity with them or any type of transactions and the source of acquaintance with the appellants. It appears that learned trial court has taken the evidence of the informant as gospel truth without any corroboration from the independent source as regards genesis and manner of occurrence. The appellants have been acquitted for the offence under section 307 of IPC and there is no recovery of any cartridge or firearm from the appellants. Admittedly, the occurrence is alleged to have happened outside the house of the informant, therefore, offence under section 452 of IPC is also not constituted in the factual background proved by the prosecution.

17. In view of the above discussion and reasons, I find that learned trial court has committed serious error of law while appreciating the evidence of witnesses examined by the prosecution and arrived at wrong conclusion about the guilt of the appellants. Therefore, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12.04.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions, F.T.C. 4th, Deoghar in Sessions Case No.41 of 1996 is, hereby, set aside and the appellants are acquitted from the charges leveled against them. This appeal is allowed.

18. The appellants are on bail. They are discharged from liability of their bail bonds and sureties are also discharged.

19. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly. Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.502 of 2005 10

20. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Date: 24 /06 /2026 Pappu/- N.A.F.R. Uploaded on 25/ 06 /2026 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.502 of 2005 11