Jharkhand High Court

Pradeep Kumar Son Of Rajendra Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 April, 2025

                                                              2025:JHHC:12430


                    Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 80 of 2006
 [Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
18.01.2006 and 19.01.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Case
Judge (F.T.C.) Latehar in Sessions Case No. 62 of 2003 arising out of
Latehar P.S. Case No. 47 of 2001 G.R. Case No. 175 of 2001]


1. Pradeep Kumar Son of Rajendra Prasad
2. Urmila Devi daughter of Late Bhuneshwar Sao
3. Sandeep Kumar Son of Rajendra Prasad @ Sao
4. Tara Devi wife of Rajendra Prasad @ Sao
  All are residents of Thana Chowk Latehar, Police Station-
  Latehar, District-Latehar                              ....    Appellants
                                Versus
  The State of Jharkhand                                 ..... Respondent
                               --------
  For the Appellants     : Mr. K.K. Mishra, Advocate.
  For the Respondent     : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.
                            PRESENT
  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
                                 ---------
                              JUDGMENT

C.A.V. On 13.02.2025 Pronounced On: 24/04/2025

1. It is to be mentioned at the very outset that out of six

appellants, the appellant No.1 Rajendra Prasad @ Sao and

appellant No.3 Dadan Prasad have been died during the

pendency of this appeal and their appeal has been abated in

vide order dated 13th February 2025.

2. A separate case was filed on behalf of appellant Rajendra

Prasad (In Criminal Appeal (SJ) 252 of 2007) who has also

been died and the appeal filed on behalf of him also stands

abated vide order dated 22.11.2019.

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 80 of 2006 Page | 1 2025:JHHC:12430

3. Heard Mr. K.K. Mishra learned counsel for alive appellants as

well as Mrs. Vandana Bharti learned Additional Public

Prosecutor appearing for the State.

4. Present appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of

conviction and sentence of the appellant dated 18.01.2006

and 19.01.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge

(F.T.C.), Latehar in Sessions Case No. 62 of 2003 arising out

of Latehar P.S. Case No. 47 of 2001 whereby and whereunder

the appellants have been held guilty for the offences under

Sections 307/34, 452/34 and 380/34 of the I.P.C. and

sentenced to undergo R.I. for 05 years along with fine of

Rs.2,000/- each for the offence under Section 307/34; R.I. for

05 years and fine of Rs.2,000/- each and for the offence

under Section 452/34; R.I. for 05 years along with fine of

Rs.5,000/- each and for the offence under Section 380/34 of

the I.P.C. with default stipulation.

Factual Matrix

5. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 04.05.2001

at about 08:30 pm informant was teaching her children

meanwhile Rajendra Prasad @ Sao, Pradip Kumar, Sandip

Kumar, Tara Devi, Urmila Devi and one another break open

and entered into her house by opening the grill gate. It is

further alleged that at the present accused persons were

armed with guns, pistol and opened one fire just entering into

the house. It is alleged that Rajendra Sao (deceased appellant)

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 80 of 2006 Page | 2 2025:JHHC:12430

started pressing the neck of the informant with intention to

kill and robbed her belongings and when informant raised

alarm meanwhile Tara Devi, Urmila Devi, Rajendra Prasad

and Dadan Sao started breaking upon the Godrej Almirah and

put robbed her ornaments, clothes, cash and kitchen utensils

and by putting in a bag, fled away.

6. On the basis of above information, F.I.R. was registered for

the offences under Sections 341, 342, 307, 452, 380, 504, 34

of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. After completion

of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for the offences

under Sections 341, 342, 307, 452, 380, 504, 34 of the I.P.C.

Further, after taking cognizance, the case was committed to

the court of Sessions where the charges were framed under

Section 307/34, 452/34, 380/34 of the I.P.C. The charges

were read-over and explained to accused persons to which

they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After

conclusion of trial, impugned judgment and order was passed

which has been assailed in this appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the

learned trial court has miserably failed to consider the

medical examination report of the victim-informant which

does not attract the ingredients of offence under Section 307

of the I.P.C. The circumstances under which the occurrence is

alleged to have taken place are very general and vague terms.

It is alleged that the accused persons have broke open the

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 80 of 2006 Page | 3 2025:JHHC:12430

Almirah and also plundered jewelleries and other household

articles, but neither the broken Almirah nor any stolen

material have been recovered and seized in this case.

Although, some of the witnesses have specifically stated that

when the police arrived at the place of occurrence, the

accused persons were also present. The appellants or in-laws

and other family members of the deceased husband of the

informant. The informant was also residing in a room provided

to her after the death of her husband, but she has some

anguish for partition of property and allotment of share of her

husband and also claiming some portion of house which was

exclusively belonging to the appellants and there was no

jointness with the deceased husband of her. In order to

vindicate subsisting rights, the informant had instituted

several civil cases against the in-laws and other appellants. In

most of the cases, the appellants have been acquitted.

Therefore, the informant has a tendency to institute several

cases purposely to harass and humiliate the appellants with a

view to yield on her desire. None of the charges were

conclusively proved by the prosecution against the appellants,

but the learned trial court by taking a sympathetical view in

favour of the informant (a widow woman) has held the

appellants guilty which is not justified under law. The

investigating Officer of the case has not been examined which

has caused great prejudice in the defence of the appellants. In

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 80 of 2006 Page | 4 2025:JHHC:12430

the alternative, it is pleaded that it was the first offence of the

appellants and in facts and circumstances of the case, at least

benefit of Section 4 Probation Offenders Act might be given to

the appellants by the learned trial court which has been

declined without recording any special reasons, the appellants

are also entitled for the said provision. Therefore, the appeal

should be allowed.

8. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has

vehemently refuted the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf

of the appellant and submitted that the learned trial court has

very wisely and aptly apprised and appreciated the evidences

available on record. There is no illegality or infirmity in the

impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by

learned trial court and there is no valid reason to interfere with

the impugned judgment and order. This appeal is devoid of

merits and fit to be dismissed.

9. I have gone through the record of the case in the light of

contentions raised on behalf of the respective parties and also

perused the impugned judgment and order.

10. On behalf of prosecution altogether 12 witnesses have been

examined and also adduced following exhibits:-

Exhibit-1- Written report of the informant

Exhibit-2- Formal F.I.R.

Exhibit-3- Registration on the back of written report.

Exhibit-4- Case diary.

Exhibit-5- Service report on the back of summons of the Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 80 of 2006 Page | 5 2025:JHHC:12430

witness Kapil Khan.

Exhibit-6- C.C. of sale deed No. 19/69.

Exhibit-7- Certificate issued by the Circle Officer, Lathar.

Exhibit-8- C.C. of plaint of Partition Suit No. 07 of 2001 of the

court of the Sub-Judge, Latehar.

Exhibit-9 to 9/2- Three rent receipt.

11. It appears that altogether 12 witnesses were examined by the

prosecution out of them P.W.1 (Mahendra Prasad), P.W.3

(Bihari Prasad), and P.W.5 (Kailash Ram), P.W. 8 (Laxman

Ram) and P.W.10 (Sanjay Agarwal) were declared hostile by the

prosecution and even denied the statement before police

during the course of investigation.

12. The most important witness of fact is the informant (Sabita

Sahu) herself who has been examined as P.W.7. According to

her evidence, on the date of occurrence at about 08:30 PM, she

was sitting in her courtyard and teaching her children

meanwhile all the above named accused persons entered in

her house. It is alleged that Rajendra Prasad @ Sao was having

pistol did one fire and ordered to kill her and to loot her

property, then other accused persons namely Pradeep Kumar

and Sandeep Kumar laid down this witness on earth and

Rajendra Prasad @ Sao started pressing her neck. Tara Devi

was carrying a big plastic bag and Urmila Devi and Dadan Sao

were armed with danda who broke open the Godrej Almirah

and suitcase and looted away ornaments, cash and other

household utensils, cheque book, pass-book and other Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 80 of 2006 Page | 6 2025:JHHC:12430

documents also of her deceased husband. She has further

deposed that she informed the occurrence to Latehar, Police

Station which is marked as Exhibit-1. In her cross-

examination, this witness admits that she has filed a criminal

case against the above name accused persons at Gumla, Civil

Court. There were other cases also lodged by this witness

against her mother-in-law, father-in-law which were

compromised. Her husband died unnatural death for which

UD Case No. 08/1997 was also lodged. Admittedly, she has

sustained no injury at all rather allegation of pressing neck

was against Rajendra Prasad Sao (deceased appellant) who has

been died. So far, rest of the appellants are concerned, no

specific overt act has been attributed against them.

P.W.2 Suraj Prasad has claimed to went to the house of the

informant (Sabita Sahu), after hearing hulla and accused

Rajendra Prasad @ Sao was threatening to local villagers also

to be intervened into the scuffle.

P.W.4 Shyam Dev Singh has simply stated that he heard

noise coming from the house of informant (Sabita Sahu) and

went there and came to know that while she was teaching her

children meanwhile, 04 to 05 accused persons started

threatening her and this witness was also threatened by the

accused persons, then he ran away.

P.W.6 Chamni Devi also heard the sound of firing and came

out from her house and saw that Rajendra Prasad @ Sao

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 80 of 2006 Page | 7 2025:JHHC:12430

having pistol, Sandeep Prasad armed with dagger, Tara devi

having plastic bag along with other accused persons came out

from the house of the informant. She came to know from the

informant that she was threatened and her household articles,

jewelleries and other valuables were looted by the accused

persons. In para 15, she has stated that she can see even less

with her eyes and she identified few persons and also not

identified too many people.

P.W.9 Sunil Kumar was returning from his Polytechnic

Institute, Latehar to his house then he heard loud sound of

firing and saw that Sabita Sahu along with her children

walking in haste on the road. Then, on asking, she replied

nothing, but proceeded forward and went to police station.

Thereafter, this witness along with others proceeded towards

the house of Sabita Sahu and saw the accused persons

Rajendra Prasad @ Sao and Pradeep Kumar along with other

04 to 05 associates were inside the grilled gate house of Sabita

Sahu and abusing the police party. Thereafter, he saw that one

bag full of items was being taken away from the house of

Sabita Sahu. Thereafter, he returned to his own house.

P.W.11 Manoj Kumar Gupta is an advocate clerk is a formal

witness and proved the formal F.I.R. as Exhibit-2.

Defence has not examined any witness but some documentary

evidences have been adduced:-

Exhibit A & A/1- Two letters written by Sunil Kumar.

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 80 of 2006 Page | 8 2025:JHHC:12430

Exhibit A/2- C.C. of Judgment of G.R. No. 139/93.

Exhibit-A/3-C.C. of Judgment S.T.-554/98

Exhibit-B- C.C. of order sheet of Misc. Case No. 376/2000.

Exhibit-B/1-C.C. of order sheet of M. Case No. 3/93.

Exhibit-B/2- C.C. of order sheet of G.R.-46/01

Exhibit-B/3 C.C. of order Sheet of Cr.Misc No. 2560/01 of

Jharkhand High Court.

Exhibit-B/4- C.C. of order Sheet of G.R. 175/01

Exhibit-B/5- C.C. of order-sheet of G.R. 344/2000.

Exhibit-B/6- C.C. of C-06/01 order-sheet.

Exhibit-B/7- C.C. G.R.-426/2001 order-sheet.

Exhibit-B/8- C.C. of order-sheet of C-10/02.

Exhibit-B/9- C.C. of order-sheet of S.T. 554/98.

Exhibit-B/10- C.C. of order sheet of Succ.Case No.19/2000.

Exhibit-B/11- C.C. of order sheet of P.S.-07/01.

Exhibit-B/12- C.C. of order Sheet of C-39/97.

Exhibit-C- C.C. of deposition of G.R.-253/01

Exhibit-C/1- C.C. of deposition of G.R.-46/01.

Exhibit-C/2- C.C. of deposition of Succ. Case No. 115/04.

Exhibit-C/3- C.C. of deposition of S.T.-554/98.

Exhibit-D- C.C. of plaint of Succ. Case No. 19/2000.

Exhibit-D/1- C.C. of plaint of P.S. 7/2001.

Exhibit-D/2- C.C. of written statement in P.S. 7/2001.

Exhibit-D/3- C.C. Complaint Petition of C-39/97.

Exhibit-D/4 C.C. of petition in Case No. 253/2001.

Exhibit-D/5- C.C. of plaint of matrimonial case no.12/92.

Exhibit-D/6- C.C. of Complain petition no. 06/2001.

Exhibit- D/7-C.C. of petition in C-06/2001.

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 80 of 2006 Page | 9 2025:JHHC:12430

Exhibit-D/8- C.C. of complain petition of C-10/2002.

Exhibit- D/9- C.C. of petition in G.R. 344/2000.

Exhibit-D/10- C.C. of petition in G.R.-426/2001.

Exhibit-D/11-C.C. of petition in C-10/2002.

Exhibit-E- C.C. of F.I.R. of G.R. 52/91.

Exhibit-E/1-C.C. of F.I.R. of G.R.-137/2004.

Exhibit-E/2 C.C. of F.I.R. of G.R.-428/01.

Exhibit-E/3 C.C. of F.I.R. of G.R. No. 344/2000.

Exhibit-E/4- C.C. of F.I.R. of G.R.-46/01.

Exhibit-E/5- C.O. of F.I.R. of G.R.-139/93.

Exhibit-E-6- C.C. of S.T. 554/98.

Exhibit-E-7- C.C. of charge-sheet of G.R.-137/04.

Exhibit E-8- C.C. of charge-sheet of G.R. 426/01.

Exhibit-E/9 C.C. of charge-sheet of G.R. 344/2000.

Exhibit-F- C.C. of charge-sheet of G.R.-46/2001.

Exhibit-G- Sale deed original No. 7610.

Exhibit-H- Original Panchnama.

Exhibit-H/1- Original suicidal letter of Mahendra Prasad.

Exhibit-I- C.C. of U.D.- Case No. 08/97.

Exhibit-J- C.C. of Misc. Case No. 376/2000.

Exhibit-K- C.C. of compromise petition in G.R. 46/01.

Exhibit-B/13- C.C. of order sheet of G.R. 235/2005.

Exhibit-E/10- C.C. of F.I.R. of G.R.253/2005.

From the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellants, it

shows that the present appellants are mother-in-law, father-

in-law and other relatives of the husband of Sabita Sahu

(informant) who are under litigating terms prior to this

occurrence and instantly present case has been lodged Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 80 of 2006 Page | 10 2025:JHHC:12430

against them. In earlier cases, compromise petitions were also

filed and Panchayati was also held to settle the dispute

regarding the landed property.

13. The overall consideration of oral as well as documentary

evidences led by the parties, it is crystal clear that no specific

or overt act has been attributed against any of the appellants

except some general and omnibus allegations of commission

of theft and pressing neck of the informant. Although, she has

not gone under any medical examination. On the basis of bald

testimony of informant, a case under Section 307 of the I.P.C.

cannot be assumed to be constituted. Particularly, when none

of the independent witnesses have corroborated the

prosecution story and even not seen the occurrence and the

informant has animus to falsely implicate the appellants due

to previous litigating terms and dispute of property. These

glaring facts, although have been noticed by the learned trial

court and specifically mentioned in the judgment itself, but

not appreciated and no weightage was given to the defence

evidence. The learned trial court has assumed the prosecution

as gospel truth because the case was lodged by a widow lady

who happens to be the wife of deceased family member of the

appellants. It appears that the whole prosecution story has