Jharkhand High Court
Ajit Saw @ Ajeet Saw vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 August, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:24025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.267 of 2024
------
Ajit Saw @ Ajeet Saw, son of Ramdhari Saw, resident of Railway
Quarter No.480/9, near Railway High School, P.O. Golpahari, P.S.
Bagbera, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand
.... .... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
With
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.234 of 2024
------
Sanjeet Saw @ Sanjeet Sao, son of Ramdhari Saw, resident of House
No.53, Gadabasa, P.O. Golpahari, P.S. Bagbera, Town Jamshedpur,
District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand .... .... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
With
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.272 of 2024
------
Gupteshwar Giri @ Leda, son of Prankrishna Giri, resident of Sanjay
Nagar, Railway Traffic Colony, P.O. Golpahari, P.S. Bagbera, Town
Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand
.... .... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Appellants : Mr. Sabyasanchi, Advocate
[In Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.267 of 2024]
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
[In Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.234 of 2024]
Mr. R.S.P. Sinha, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
[In Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.272 of 2024]
For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P.
[In Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.267 of 2024]
Mr. Someshwar Roy, A.P.P.
[In Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.234 of 2024]
Mr. Gautam Rakesh, A.P.P.
[In Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.272 of 2024]
For the Informant : Mr. Vishal Kumar Trivedi, Advocate
Mr. Jai Mohan Mishra, Advocate (In all cases)
------
CAV ON : 30.07.2025 PRONOUNCED ON 14.08.2025
1. These criminal appeals arise out of judgment of conviction and
sentence passed in Sessions Trial No.252 of 2022 whereby and whereunder,
the appellants have been convicted and sentenced under Section 341/149
2025:JHHC:24025
and 307/149 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
2. Informant is the injured who sustained bullet injuries on the way to
his shop in the morning at around 10 am. As per the fardbeyan of Bablu
Singh recorded on 09.09.2021 at 11:20 a.m. in the TMH Hospital,
Jamshedpur, he stated that on the day of occurrence his father-in-law, Bharat
Singh was sitting in his gas stove repair shop when Sanjeet, Ajeet, Leda and
10 - 15 associates entered into his shop and asked his father-in-law to call
his owner. Having received this information, when informant was rushing to
the shop, he was intercepted by accused persons near Railway Traffic
Colony, Guard Running Room, Sanjeet, Ajeet and Leda opened fire at him,
as a result, he received gunshot injuries over his legs and other parts of his
body. He was rushed to the hospital where his statement was recorded by the
police.
3. On the basis of the fardbeyan, Jamshedpur, Bagbera P.S. Case 108 of
2021 was registered under Sections 341, 325, 326, 307/34 of the IPC and
Section 27 of the Arms Act against 03 named accused persons along with
10 - 15 other unknown persons. Police on investigation, found the case true
and submitted charge sheet against altogether 15 accused persons including
these appellants, who were put on trial under Sections 341, 325, 326, 307/34
of the IPC and Section 25(1-B)(a)/ 25(1)(a)/26/27/35 of the Arms Act.
4. Altogether nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution
and Dr. Abhijit Guha is the Court witness as CW-1. Apart from oral
evidence of witnesses, P-1 to P-27 were adduced into evidence and marked
as exhibits. Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section
313 of the Cr.P.C. Defence is of innocence, but no specific defence has been
pleaded and no evidence has been led on behalf of the accused persons.
5. Further, material exhibits MO-I to MO-VIII/14 were produced before
the Court. The Court witness proved the injury report of P.W. 6 and marked
as Ext. C-1/C.W.-1. Learned trial Court convicted three accused persons and
acquitted rest of the 11 accused persons.
6. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of appellant-
Gupteshwar Giri @ Leda that, there is no eye witness to the incidence
save and except the injured, who has been examined as P.W. 6. Other
witnesses, P.Ws. 1 and 3 have not at all supported the case of the
prosecution and were declared hostile. P.W. 4-brother of the informant, and
2025:JHHC:24025
P.W. 5-wife of the informant, are not eye witnesses to the occurrence, rather
they are hearsay witnesses.
7. As per the prosecution case, father-in-law of the informant namely
Bharat Singh was present in the shop when the accused persons are said to
have gone there looking for the informant, but surprisingly enough, he has
not been examined on behalf of the prosecution. The case rests on the
solitary account of P.W. 6-Bablu Singh, whose testimony has not been
corroborated by any other witnesses. With regard to his testimony, it is
submitted that there is a discrepant statement in the very opening paragraph
of his deposition wherein, he has deposed that the incidence took place on
09:09 at night, whereas as per the FIR, the time of occurrence was 09:30 to
10:00 in the morning.
8. It is submitted that the appellant was riding a Bullet motorcycle, but
the said motorcycle has also not been seized. It is argued by the learned
counsel that no arms or ammunitions was seized from this appellant which
will be evident from Para 74 of the deposition of the I.O. (P.W. 9). It is
further submitted that it was the informant/injured, who had shot at this
accused Gupteshwar Giri @ Leda, as a result of which, he was injured and
admitted for treatment in MGM Hospital which has come in the testimony
of the Investigating Officer in para 60 and 61, Bagbera P.S. Case No. 113 of
2021, was lodged regarding the said incidence.
9. It is further, argued that the Doctor, who examined the injured, has not
been examined and the injury report has been formally proved by Doctor,
who had not even seen the patient. The injury report on the face of it,
appears to be discrepant as the dimensions of the injuries are all identical.
Further, depth of the injuries has not been given in any of the injuries
sustained by the injured.
10. It is argued by Mr. Sabyasanchi, learned counsel for the appellant-
Ajeet Saw in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 267 of 2024, that as per the testimony
of the injured, appellant was not the assailant and the allegation of firing is
not against him. It is also submitted that the judgment of conviction and
sentence is not sustainable, as this appellant has been sought to be
implicated in this case with the assistance of Section 149 of IPC. However,
out of 14 accused persons, 11 have been acquitted and only three persons
have been convicted. Since the number is less than five, therefore,
2025:JHHC:24025
conviction with the aid of Section 149 of IPC is not sustainable.
11. Secondly, it is argued that the testimony of Geeta Devi, (P.W.-5) wife
of the injured, will not come under Section 6 of the Evidence Act, for the
reason that as per the testimony of P.W. 6, the incidence took place at 09:09
in the night, whereas P.W. 5 arrived at the place of occurrence at 10:30 am.
Lastly, it is argued that the recovery of weapons of offence on the basis of
the disclosure statement made by this accused is also under cloud for the
reason that the seizure list witnesses were not the charge-sheeted witnesses
in the present case. The testimony of injured cannot be relied upon as he had
many criminal antecedents and was in custody in connection with two cases.
12. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant-
Sanjeet Saw in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 234 of 2024, adopts the argument
advanced on behalf of other appellants, as his case is on similar footing with
that of appellant- Ajeet Saw.
13. Mr. Vishal Kumar Trivedi, learned counsel for the informant, assisted
by learned counsel for the State submitted that the time of occurrence as
appearing in para-1 of the deposition of P.W. 6 to be 09:09 at night, was a
typographical error which will be apparent from the deposition of this
witness in para 28 in the cross-examination. In para-28, it has been deposed
by P.W. 6 that he was a Security Guard and after returning from his duty, the
incidence took place in the morning. Reliance is placed on Cr. Appeal Nos.
1200-1202 of 2022 (Khema @ Khem Chandra Etc. Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh) wherein, it has been held that typographical errors cannot be the
sole basis to disbelieve the prosecution case.
14. With regard to medical evidence, it is submitted that it has come in
the testimony of Court Witness that since Doctor Sourabh Ahmad, who had
examined the injured had resigned from Tata Memorial Hospital and he
could not be traced out, therefore, the injury report had to be proved by the
formal witness.
15. With regard to the case lodged by Gupteshwar Giri, it is submitted
that this case was filed as a counter case after the police case was registered
against Gupteshwar Giri being Bagbera P.S. Case No. 108 of 2021 and the
case lodged by Gupteshwar Giri is Bagbera P.S. Case No. 113 of 2021.
FINDING
16. Criminal trial in any case involves adjudication on two fundamental
2025:JHHC:24025
issues. First is, if at all, the crime did take place, and second who was the
author of crime.
17. In the present case there is not a scintilla of doubt of the occurrence
of crime in which the informant was shot at in broad daylight at around
10 O'clock. Immediately after the incidence the statement of the injured was
recorded in the hospital by the police at 11:20 am and formal FIR was
lodged at 4:30 pm on the same day. Oral evidence of P.W.-6 is corroborated
by P.Ws.-4 & 5, with regard to the place and time of the incidence.
Investigating Officer examined as P.W.-9 has proved the place of
occurrence. He has deposed that on receipt of the information he reached the
place of occurrence near Quarter No.372/2, where the informant was lying
in an injured condition in a pool of blood. Five fired shells, live rounds,
front part of bullet etc. were seized from the scene of crime. He has given
the boundaries of the place of occurrence and has stated that there were
blood stain marks present on the ground. Oral evidence is further
corroborated by injury report (Ext-C-1/C.W.1) regarding the gunshot injury
received by the informant.
18. Now coming to the author of crime, informant is the injured witness
who has been examined as P.W.-6. Law is settled that when the injured itself
is an eye witness, due credence to his version needs to be accorded, as he is
a witness that comes with a built in guarantee of his presence at the scene of
the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailants in order to falsely
implicate someone else.
19. P.W.-6 has deposed that at the time of incidence he was at his home,
when about 15 to 20 persons went to his shop searching for him. His father-
in-law was present there who told them, that he was shortly to come there. It
is further deposed by him that on his way when he reached near Kitadih
Road, he was surrounded by 15 - 16 persons. Four of them were having
guns, and others were having stones and bricks with them. Sanjeet Sao,
Ajeet Sao, Gupteshwar Giri and one more person whose names he did not
know were having gun with them. In the meantime, Sanjeet Sao, Ajeet Sao,
Gupteshwar Giri and Basant Upadhyay said that, as he had not obeyed their
orders, therefore, he will have to face the consequence. Thereafter, Sanjeet
Sao, Ajeet Sao and Gupteshwar Giri opened indiscriminate fire at him. He
sustained bullet injuries, five in number. Basant Upadhyay struck him with a
2025:JHHC:24025
brick. His wife came soon after, when he was in critically injured condition.
He disclosed to her the name of the assailants. In his cross-examination, he
deposed that he had not read statement, over which he had signed before the
Police. He has admitted that he was in custody in connection with a case
under Section 302 IPC. After the firing incidence, he was in his senses.
20. On a close scrutiny of the testimony of this witness, it is apparent that
he has not been confronted with his previous statement to elicit any
contradiction from his FIR or subsequent statement given to the Police.
Veracity of his account is further established by the fact that there was no
delay in lodging the FIR, which was soon after the incidence, on the basis of
his statement recorded on the same day, while he was admitted in the
hospital in an injured condition. When there is delay in lodging FIR, then
there is scope of afterthought and false implication. However, if it is
recorded immediately after the incidence, it has a high degree of probability.
His testimony is fully corroborated under Section 157 of the Evidence Act
by the FIR. There is no reason whatsoever that he will name anyone who
was not involved in the shooting incidence. As discussed above, the
testimony of an injured witness is entitled to a higher degree of credence.
21. Further, his evidence is also corroborated by the evidence of his wife
and brother (P.W.-5 and P.W.-4) who soon rushed to the place of occurrence.
They are not direct eye witness to the incidence but have stated that on
hearing commotion they arrived at the place of occurrence and found P.W.-6
lying in an injured condition who told them that it was these appellants who
had shot him. This part of the testimony will be admissible under Section 6
of the Evidence Act, as it was part of the same transaction and the
statements of the injured to these witnesses were shortly after the incidence,
so as to be regarded as part of the same transaction.
22. A testimony of a witness is to be considered in its totality. It has been
rightly argued that in para-1 of the deposition of P.W.-6 there is a
typographical error in stating the time of the incidence, which cannot be the
sole basis to disbelieve his testimony.
23. This Court is of the view that testimony of the informant (P.W.-6), can
be fully relied upon to return a judgment of conviction. Non-examination of
his father-in-law, who was not even an eyewitness to the incidence, shall
have no bearing, as the testimony of the other witnesses present a cogent
2025:JHHC:24025
reliable and trustworthy account. Merely because the informant was
involved in a case under Section 302 of IPC, will not exonerate the present
appellants. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that the informant
has criminal antecedents. So has been argued on behalf of the informant
regarding the criminal antecedents of the appellants. This will have no
bearing on the evidentiary value of the prosecution witnesses, but it is
suggestive of the offence being committed on account of gang rivalry.
24. It can be safely concluded on the basis of the evidence on record that
it were these appellants who along with others conjointly intercepted the
informant and indiscriminately fired at him resulting in critical injury.
25. With regard to the applicability of Section 149 of I.P.C, merely
because the other accused persons having been acquitted, it cannot be
contended that the judgment of conviction of appellants- Ajeet Saw and
Sanjeet Saw is vitiated in view of the ratio laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Kallu @ Masih & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2006) 10 SCC
313.
26. Not much value can be attached to the injury sustained by one of the
accused Gupteshwar Giri @ Leda, for which a separate case was lodged by
him after this case. It is a further circumstance which shows the involvement
of the accused persons in the incidence. No defence has been taken at the
stage of trial that it was the informant who had fired at them and they had
acted in self-defence by shooting at him. It has been held in State of M.P.
Vs. Ramesh {(2005) 9 SCC 705} that non-explanation of injuries sustained
by accused about the occurrence, or in the course of altercation is a very
important circumstance.
27. Lastly, non-examination of the Doctor, who examined the injured
after the incidence has been duly explained, as he had left the hospital and
therefore his attendance could not be procured during the course of trial. In
such circumstance, the injury report was prepared by the examining doctor
in ordinary course of business in the discharge of official duty, therefore, it
was admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act, without the
examination of the said doctor. Injury Report has been proved and marked
as Exhibit.
28. In this view of matter, for the reasons discussed above, I do not find
any infirmity in the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the
2025:JHHC:24025
learned Trial Court.
Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the
learned Trial Court is affirmed.
All the three appeals stand dismissed.
Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated the 14th August, 2025
NAFR/ Anit/AKT
