Jharkhand High Court
Sabarjeet Singh @ Sabarjeet Kr. Singh ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 November, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.A(SJ) No.347 of 2006
1. Sabarjeet Singh @ Sabarjeet Kr. Singh Son of Rajnandan Singh
2. Mirtunjoy Singh @ Mritunjay Kr. Singh Son of Arbind Singh
Both Resident of Mango Chowk, Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S.
Mango, Distt. Singhbhum East
... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
... Respondent
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Rohit Agarwal, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, A.P.P.
------
PRESENT
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
Dated- 11.11.2024
By Court:- Heard Mr. Rohit Agarwal, learned counsel appearing
for the appellants as well as Mr. Sardhu Mahto, learned
A.P.P. appearing for the State.
2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and
order dated 17.01.2006 passed by Additional District and
Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.6, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in
S.T. Case No.69 of 2002, whereby and whereunder the
appellants were held guilty for the offence under Section 323
of the Indian Penal Code and instead of awarding any
Cr.A(SJ) No.347 of 2006 Page | 1
substantive sentence of imprisonment was released on
furnishing bond of Rs.5000/- with two sureties under Section
4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
3. The prosecution case is based on fardbeyan of one Amit
Kumar Singh (informant) stating inter alia that on 08.03.2001
at around 10:15 P.M., the informant was assaulted by
Sarabjeet Singh @ Bablu with an iron rod near Aakash Ganga
Apartment. The informant suffered injuries to his head and
fell on the ground. When his friend Javed Akhtar tried to
intervene, he was also assaulted. Another assailant,
Mirtunjoy Singh, struck Javed with a Bhoojali, causing
injuries to his left hand. The informant mentioned other boys
were present but he could not identify them due to the
darkness.
4. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, Mango P.S.
Case No.68 of 2001 was registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was
submitted against the appellants for the aforesaid offences
and accordingly, charges were framed against the accused
persons under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C. which were read
Cr.A(SJ) No.347 of 2006 Page | 2
over and explained to them for which they pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried.
6. After conclusion of trial, the appellant was held guilty
for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as stated above
which has been assailed in this appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants assailing the
impugned judgment and order has submitted that the
appellants were convicted in this case without any legal
evidence. The learned trial court has acted upon the sole
testimony of injured witness without any corroboration from
independent source. Investigating Officer of the case was also
not examined. Hence, impugned judgment and order of
conviction of the appellants is liable to be set aside and this
appeal may be allowed.
8. Per contra, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has
vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on
behalf of the appellant and submitted that the injured witness
has been categorically supported the incident and injury
sustained by him has also been corroborated from the
medical examination report. There is no requirement of any
other independent witness to corroborate the prosecution
story under such circumstances. The learned trial court taking
lenient view in the matter of sentence has granted the benefit
of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the appellants in
compliance of which the appellants have furnished the
required bond, the period of which has also been expired as
such there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned
judgment and order which is fit to be dismissed.
9. I have given anxious consideration to the aforesaid
contentions raised on behalf of both side and also perused the
impugned judgment and order along with materials available
on record.
10. It appears that F.I.R. was registered as Mango P.S. Case
No.68 of 2001 for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324
and 307 r.w. Section 34 of the I.P.C. on the basis of fardbeyan
of one Amit Kumar Singh. As per F.I.R., allegation is that on
08.03.2001 at about 10:10 P.M., when informant was returning
from Mango to his home by his Hero Honda motorcycle No.
BR-16-M-1118 and reached near post office situated near
Hanuman Temple in front of Aakash Ganga where appellant
Sabarjeet Singh @ Bablu got stopped vehicle of the informant
and assaulted him with iron rod on right side of head. When
informant fell down, he again assaulted on back and left
thigh, meanwhile, informant's friend Javed Akhtar
approached there and intervened then Sabarjeet also
assaulted him by iron rod and Mritunjay Singh assaulted him
by Bhoojali. The accused persons also snatched wrist watch of
Javed.
11. It appears that in the course of trial eight witnesses
were examined by the prosecution out of them P.W.-1
Saurabh Singh has been declared hostile by the prosecution.
It further appears that P.W.-4 Amit Kumar Singh is the
informant-cum-injured witness in this case who has
categorically deposed that while he was returning to his
home, he was intercepted by the appellants and assaulted
with iron rod by appellant No.1 Sabarjeet Singh and his
friend Javed was also assaulted by appellant No.2 Mritunjay
Kumar Singh by Bhoojali causing cut injury on finger and this
witness sustained injuries on his head, thigh and back.
P.W.-3 Javed Akhtar is another eye witness-cum-
injured who has also categorically corroborated the evidence
of P.W.-4 and stated that while Sabarjeet Singh was
assaulting to his friend Amit Kumar Singh, he approached
Cr.A(SJ) No.347 of 2006 Page | 5
there and intervened in the matter, meanwhile, he was also
assaulted by one Mritunjay Kumar and sustained cut injuries
on his finger and both were medically examined by Dr.
Niranjan Rao. There is no material contradiction or infirmity
in the evidence of above witnesses to disbelieve or discredit
their evidence.
P.W.-2 Ram Kumar Singh is the elder brother of the
informant who approached at the place of occurrence hearing
hallah of his brother and saw that Javed and Amit have been
sustained injuries who were assaulted by Sabarjeet Kumar
Singh and Mritunjay Singh.
12. It further transpires that the evidence of P.W.-5, 6 and 7
also corroborates the prosecution story.
P.W.-5 Dr. A.P. Patra has examined the injured Amit
Kumar Singh and found following injuries:
(i) Lacerated wound occipital area size 3"x1/2"x1/2"
(ii) Contusion over back left side 6"x1"
(iii) Contusion over lower back of chest below left rib 4"x1"
(iv) Abrasion left side thigh 1" long
All the above injuries are opined to be simple in nature
caused by hard and blunt substance.
P.W.-6 Dr. Nilanjan Roy has examined the injured
Javed Akhtar and found following injuries:
(i) Contusion left hand base of thumb size 1"x1/2"
(ii) Lacerated wound back of left thumb size 1"x1/8"x1/8"
(iii) Contusion left forearm size 2"x1"
(iv) Contusion with abrasion upper chest anterior size
1"x1/2"
All the above injures are also opined to be simple in
nature but in his cross-examination he has admitted that
above injuries may be caused by fall on a hard substance.
P.W.-7 Dr. Mohan Rao has proved the X-ray report of
injured Javed Akhtar but found no abnormalcy.
P.W.-8 Nagendra Kumar Singh is a Homeguard 134
who has proved the signature of the then Officer In-Charge
over the fardbeyan and formal F.I.R.
13. In view of above discussion of evidence available on
record, I do not find any legal force in the argument of
learned counsel for the appellant that the conviction and
sentence is based upon no legal evidence rather the
prosecution has been able to prove the charge under Section
323 of the I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt and there
Cr.A(SJ) No.347 of 2006 Page | 7
appear no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the learned trial court, therefore, this
appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.
14. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record
be sent back to the concerned trial court.
15. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Sachin
