Annu Verma @ Anurudha Verma vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 5268 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Annu Verma @ Anurudha Verma vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 April, 2025

Author: Sanjay Prasad

Bench: Sanjay Prasad

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
     Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 1519 of 2005
                   ---------
Annu Verma @ Anurudha Verma, son of Shri Rajendra
Prasad Sah, resident of village-Digwadih, P.S.-
Jorapokhar, District-Dhanbad at present village-
Jamtara, Malpara, P.S. Jamtara, District-Jamtara
                                     ..... Appellant
                   Versus
The State of Jharkhand
                                      ..... Respondent
                   ----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
                   ----------
For the Appellant     : Mr. Kaushal Kumar Mishra, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr. Prabir Kr. Chatterjee, Spl.P.P.
                   ---------
                   JUDGMENT

Reserved on 24.10.2024 Pronounced on 28.04.2025

This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the judgment of conviction dated 29.11.2005 and sentence dated 01.12.2005 passed by Shri Arun Kumar, the learned Special Judge-cum-1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Special Case No. 14/01/12/02, by which the Appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for Seven years.

The Appellant is also convicted for the offence under Section 341 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one month.

The Appellant is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) payable to the injured Informant, without mentioning the relevant Section.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the Informant had lodged this F.I.R. alleging that on

21.04.1998, at 12.00 noon, while he was returning to his house by the main road of the market and when he reached near Sony Watch shop of the accused- Appellant, namely Annu Verma, the accused called him to the shop and abused him by condemning that he was doing Rangdari and when the Informant objected, the accused caught his collar and began to assault him with fists. When the informant protested, then the accused took up the knife kept in the shop and assaulted the Informant with knife in the belly, armpit, left arm and on head causing injuries to him. Thereafter, the Informant raised hullah and the witnesses arrived there and carried the informant to the Nursing Home for treatment of the injuries. It is also alleged that prior to occurrence the accused had demanded vehicle from the Informant and when he refused to give him, then the accused had threatened him on that day and due to that reason the accused has committed this offence to the Informant.

3. Heard Mr. Kaushal Kishore Mishra, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Prabir Kr. Chatterjee, learned Spl.P.P. for the State.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law.

It is submitted that the learned Trial court has not considered with regard to non- examination of the independent witness or Investigating Officer of the case which has prejudiced the case of the Appellant as the Appellant could not

get an opportunity to ask question regarding the place of occurrence.

It is submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the place of occurrence.

It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has not taken notice with regard to nature of injuries which are simple in nature.

It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has convicted the Appellant only on the basis of statement of the Informant who is also involved in a case of kidnapping of a girl which shows the conduct of the Informant.

It is submitted that there is contradiction in the evidences of the prosecution witnesses, hence the impugned judgment and sentence may be set aside and this Criminal Appeal may be allowed.

5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the submission and submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and Sentence are fit and proper and no interference is required from this Court.

It is submitted that there is direct allegation against the Appellant in the F.I.R. for assaulting the Informant on the various parts of his body. It is submitted that several prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case. It is submitted that the informant has been examined as P.W.6 in this case and he has fully supported the prosecution case and the injuries caused by the appellant upon his person. It is submitted that the

Injury Report of the Injured-Informant is marked as Ext.1 and which is proved by the Doctor, namely Dr. Sudarshan Kr. Gutgutia examined as P.W.1.

It is submitted that P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, namely Manoj Tibrewal, Ajit Kumar Tibrewal and Jhumru Bauri respectively have supported the occurrence and also supported the prosecution case. Thus, the Informant has fully proved his case.

It is submitted that non-examination of the Investigating Officer is not fatal to the prosecution case. Hence, the judgment and sentence passed by the Court below may be upheld.

6. Now, this Court has to consider as to whether the judgment and sentence passed by the learned Court below are proper or not?

7. Perused the Lower Court Record of this case and considered the submission of both the sides.

8. It transpires that the Informant had lodged the F.I.R. on 21.04.1998 against the Appellant giving rise to Jamtara P.S. Case No. 66 of 1998, correspondent to G.R. No.144 of 1998 for the offences under Sections 341/323/324/307 of I.P.C. Later on, Section 3.1(x) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) act, 1989 was added on 30.04.1998.

9. The Police, after completing investigation, had submitted chargesheet against the Appellant on 10.06.1998 for the offences under Sections 341/323/324/307 of I.P.C. and Section 3(ii)(x) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) act, 1989. Thereafter, the

learned A.C.J.M. had taken cognizance against the Appellant under Sections 341/323/324/307 of I.P.C.

10. After supplying police papers to the Appellant the case was transferred to the Court of Sessions.

11. The charges were framed against the appellant on 18.09.2001 under Section 341 and 307 of I.P.C. and also under Section 3(ii)(v) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) act, 1989 by Shri Arun Dhwaj Prasad Singh, learned Special Judge, Dumka and to which the Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

12. During trial the prosecution got examined Six (06) witnesses, who are as follows:-

(i) P.W.1 is Dr.Sudarshan Kr. Gutgutia,

(ii)P.W.2 is Manoj Tibrewal, i.e. Businessman

(iii)P.W.3 is Ajit Kr. Tibrewal, i.e. the Businessman,

(iv)P.W.4 is Jhumru Bauri, i.e. Brother of the Informant,

(v) P.W.5 is Ram Bauri and

(vi)P.W.6 is Chandan Kumar Bauri, i.e. Informant of this case

13. The prosecution, in support of its case, has got marked certain documents, which are as follows:-

(i) Ext. 1 is the Injury report of Chandan Bauri,

(ii)Ext. 2 is the fardbayan.

14. Thereafter, the Appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 17.11.2005 and to which he denied the circumstances put forth before him.

15. Neither any defence witness has been examined nor any document was marked Exhibit.

16. Thereafter, learned Trial Court had convicted the Appellant on 28.11.2005 for the offence under Section 307 and 341 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for Seven years for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and R.I. for one month for the offence under Section 341 I.P.C. and the Appellant was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand)

17. It transpires that the Informant has filed F.I.R. against the Appellant for assaulting him by fists and slaps and also for giving knife blow due to which he sustained injury in abdomen, rib, left arm and head by calling upon his shop. Then the Informant raised alarm and nearby people assembled there and the Informant was taken to the Nursing Home and by that time he had became unconscious.

18. It is also alleged that the reason for the quarrel is that the accused-appellant had demanded one vehicle from the Informant, but he refused to deliver him the said vehicle and for which the appellant had threatened the Informant. The Witness to the F.I.R. was one Shambhu Bauri.

19. So far as evidence of the prosecution witnesses is concerned, P.W.1 is Dr. Sudarshan Kr. Gutgutia, who had examined the Injured-Informant on 21.04.1998 and had found the injuries on his person, which are as follows:

"(I) lacerated injury on the left side of the scalp- 2cm X 1/2 cm X ½ cm- Simple in nature (II) Left hand-lacerated wound in the lower part of arm. There were two injuries on hand in the

Lateral side-2cmX ½ cm X ½ cm Medial side-Small lacerated having bleeding.

(III) On the chest wall, lacerated injury on the left side at the level of 8th and 5th rib in the mid ancillary line- 2cm X 1 cm X ½ cm. This can be caused by slap.

(IV) On the interior abdominal wall left side 2 cm X ½ cm X ½ cm All the above injuries are simple in nature and caused by blunt weapon. Age of injury is 6 hours."

The Doctor, i.e. P.W.1 has proved the injury report marked as Ext.1.

20. However, during cross-examination he stated that such injury can be caused by hitting with hard surface and also possiblly due to fall.

He also admitted to have not mentioned the colour of injury.

21. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.1, i.e. the Doctor, it is evident that he has proved the injury report of the Informant, marked as Ext.1, which reveals that Informant has sustained four injuries upon his person, though the Doctor has stated that all the four injuries are simple in nature.

22. P.W.2, namely Manoj Tibrewal, who is a businessman and has stated during his evidence that he has got his machinery shop on Jamtara Main Market and on that road there is the jewellery shop of the Appellant Annu Verma. However, he had heard about the assault but he had not seen the assault. However, he claimed to have learnt that Annu Verma, i.e. the Appellant had assaulted the Informant, but he had not gone to the place of occurrence.

23. During cross-examination he stated that the police had not recorded his statement. He also admitted that he had not seen the assault. He could not remember as to who had informed him about the quarrel/assault.

24. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.2, it is evident that he is a hear-say witness and his statement was not recorded by the police and he had not seen the occurrence. However, he has claimed that the Appellant has got jewellery shop of gold and silver. Thus, evidence of P.W.2 is not reliable.

25. P.W.3 is Ajit Kumar Tibrewal, who has stated that his shop is situated at Jamtara Main Road and the shop of the Appellant is of Gold and Silver and is also situated on the same road. He stated that while he was in the shop, then he heard about the Marpit, i.e. the assault and heard that the injured had quarreled with the Appellant Annu Verma and the Injured boy was taken to the hospital.

26. During cross-examination, he admitted that the Marpit, i.e. assault had not taken during his presence and he had also not taken the injured to the hospital. He could not remember as to who had informed him about the assault and the police had also not recorded his statement.

27. Thus, P.W.3 is a hear-say witness and he had not seen the occurrence and the Police had also not recorded his statement, thus, evidence of P.W.3 is not reliable.

28. P.W.4 is Jhumru Bauri, i.e. the elder brother of the Informant, who stated that on the date

of occurrence when he was working in his shop, he heard the news about the assault on the Informant Chandan Bauri. Then, he came from the shop to the nursing home where he had seen the Informant. However, the Informant has not disclosed the name of any person before him.

This witness, i.e. P.W.4, has been declared hostile by the prosecution.

29. Thus, it is evident that P.W.4, who is the own brother of the Injured-Informant had not supported the prosecution case and he had not taken the name of the Appellant for assaulting the Informant and he had been declared hostile by the prosecution and hence, the evidence of P.W. 4 is not reliable.

30. P.W.5 is Ram Bauri, who also stated during his evidence that he was working in his shop at the time of the occurrence and today the Appellant had taken him before the Court for giving evidence.

This P.W.5 has also been declared hostile by the prosecution.

During cross-examination he stated that the Police had not recorded his statement.

31. Thus, it is evident that the evidence of P.W.5 is also not reliable as he had been declared hostile by the prosecution and his statement had not been recorded by the Police.

32. P.W.6 is Chandan Kumar Bauri, who is the injured-Informant of this case and who stated during his evidence that on 21.04.1998, at around 12 Noon, while he was going to his house from the main Market Road and when he arrived near the shop of the

Appellant Annu Verma, then the Appellant called him to his shop and abused him and scolded him for doing Dadagiri, but the Informant had denied for doing such Act. Thereafter, the Appellant caught hold of his collar and assaulted him by fists and slaps and when he tried to save himself then the Appellant assaulted him by knife in his abdomen, rib, head and Arm and on alarm being raised by the Informant, the accused- Appellant fled away.

This witness, i.e. P.W.6, during the course of evidence, had shown the scar of cut in his abdomen, rib and left arm before the learned Court below.

He further stated that on his alarm nearby people came and had seen the Appellant fleeing away and thereafter, he was brought to the Nursing Home for his treatment. He further stated that reason of assault is that prior to this occurrence, the Appellant had demanded his vehicle for carrying the articles, but he refused to give the vehicle and for which the Appellant had threatened him of dire consequences.

He further stated that he is a Harijan Bauri, whereas the accused-Appellant is a forward caste.

His statement was recorded by the police at the Nursing Home. He further put his signature on the Fardbayan and signature of the Informant on the Fardbayan is marked as Ext. 2.

He also identified the Appellant in the Court for assaulting him.

33. During cross-examination, he stated that he is a vehicle Driver and he used to put his Car before the Nursing Home in the morning at around 8 a.m., but he returns for his lunch between 12.00 Noon to 01.00 p.m. and after taking meal he again goes to the Nursing Home at around 02.00 p.m. and used to ply his vehicle in front of Nursing Home. He was also acquainted with the staff of the Nursing home. He also admitted to be an accused in one case for enticing the daughter of one Subhash Rawat, but it is a false case.

He also admitted to be driving the car of Dr. R.P. Jha, but presently he is driving the vehicle of Kundan Singh.

He denied the suggestion to have fled away with the Girl of the person for whom he was driving the vehicle and due to which he was removed from the job.

He claimed to have stated before the police that the Appellant had abused him and the people from the nearby shops had seen the occurrence as all the shops were opened and it was a busy road, but he could not say the name of any person who were moving on the road at that time although 30-40 people have assembled there. He was taken to the Nursing Home by Jhumru Bauri, i.e. P.W.4. He could not say the date on which the Appellant Annu Verma had demanded the vehicle from him. He further stated that he sustained bleeding injury due to knife blow and he has got bloodstained clothes in his house and even blood has fallen on the surface, however, he had not handed over the said clothes to the Police.