Jharkhand High Court
Resident Of Hum Pipe vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 January, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1463 of 2006
------
Yogendra Verma Son of Late Khemu Verma
Resident of Hum Pipe, Chhaya Nagar,
P.O + P.S. Sitaramdera, Jamshedpur,
District- Singhbhum East.
.... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... Respondent
------
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Akanksha Priya, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P.
------
PRESENT
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
Dated- 13.01.2025
By Court:- Heard Ms. Akanksha Priya, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant as well as Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P. appearing for the
State.
2. Instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 16.09.2006 & 18.09.2006 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge FTC No.VI, Jamshedpur, in
Sessions Case No. 364 of 2002, whereby and where under the
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1463 of 2006 Page | 1
appellant has been held guilty and convicted for the offence under
Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and has sentenced to undergo
R.I. for 7 years each with a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default
stipulation.
Factual Matrix
3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal as depicted in F.I.R. is
that on 17.02.2002 at about 07:00 PM, the informant was going to a
party with his friend and when they reached near the bus stand in
front of Chhaya Nagar, they saw that one person was lying on the
road and 5/6 persons including this appellant were beating with
fists to another. Upon humanitarian ground, the informant and his
friend started lifting the person laying on the ground. Then, the
accused persons including this appellant shouted to kill and
started assaulting. One accused (Rampada Karmakar) caught hold
the hands of the informant from back side and this appellant took
out a knife and stabbed in the stomach, which hit the lower
abdomen and caused severe injury to the informant due to which
he fell down. When the people standing nearby reached there, the
accused persons fled away from the spot.
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1463 of 2006 Page | 2
4. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan, Sitaramdera P.S. Case no.
06/2002 was registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 341 of the
I.P.C. against accused persons including the appellant.
5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted
against the appellant along with three another accused persons
and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial and
disposal.
6. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against accused
persons, altogether 6 witnesses were examined and following
documents were exhibited.
Exhibit-1 - Injury report of Anish Kumar by signature of Dr. S.C.
Panda.
Exhibit 2:- Injury report of the same made by Dr. S. Pradhan.
Exhibit 3:- Fardbayan of Anish Kumar
Exhibit 4:- Arrest memo of Shiv Karmakar.
Exhibit 5:- Arrest memo of Yogendra Verma.
Exhibit 6:- Arrest memo of Rampado Karmakar.
Exhibit 7:- Arrest memo of Seth Karmakar.
Exhibit 8:- Formal F.I.R.
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1463 of 2006 Page | 3
7. The case of defence is denial from the occurrence and false
implication. The defence has also examined four witnesses.
8. After conclusion of trial, after appraisal of the evidence adduced
on behalf of the parties, the learned trial court held the appellant
guilty for the offences under Section 326 of the I.P.C. and
sentenced as stated above.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is
allegation of stabbing the informant by knife. Admittedly, the
incident took place in a sudden manner. The place of occurrence
has also not been proved by the prosecution and witnesses have
given inconsistent and contradictory testimony in this regard.
10. In alternative, it is submitted that the appellant has undergone
about nine month's custody during the trial of the case and have
sufficiently been punished for his guilt. Hence, this appeal may be
allowed by setting aside the judgment and order of conviction and
sentence under Section 326 of the IP.C or the sentence of the
appellant may be reduced to already undergone.
11. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has
vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of
the appellant and submitted that the nature of injury although
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1463 of 2006 Page | 4
found on the body of injured has been found to be dangerous to
life and the learned trail court has properly considered the
evidence available on record and passed the impugned judgment
and order which suffers from no illegality or infirmities. This
appeal is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed.
12. I have gone through the entire record along with impugned
judgment and contentions raised on behalf of both side.
It appears that out of 6 witnesses examined by the
prosecution, the most important witness is P.W.1 and P.W.3.
P.W.3 (Anish Kumar) is the informant of this case. According to
his evidence, on 17.02.2002 at about 07:00 PM, he along with his
friend was going to attend a party by motorcycle and in the way
they saw that a person was lying on the road. When they reached
to rescue, they were caught by Shibu Karmakar and Seth
Karmakar and the present appellant stabbed him in the stomach
due to which the endocrine vein of the informant was punctured
and he fell down and his friend Sonu Singh took him to the
hospital where he was treated.
In his cross-examination, he has stated that at the place of
occurrence several trucks were parked and admitted that none of
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1463 of 2006 Page | 5
the drivers or conductors were examined in his presence. It also
admitted that when he was stabbed by knife, he screamed, but
none of the drivers or conductors reached there to rescue him.
P.W.1 (Dr. Subhash Chandra Panda) is the doctor who has
examined the informant and found following injuries:-
(i) Punctured wound right iliac fossa close to inguinal region with
active bleeding
2/3" x 1/6" depth weapon used to inflict injury sharp and
pointed.
13. In view of discussions of the above important witness, I am of the
firm view that the learned trial court has properly considered the
overall aspect of the case. Therefore, conviction and sentence
under Section 326 of the I.P.C. is affirmed. So far sentence of
appellant is concerned, it appears that appellant has already
undergone nine months custody during trial of the case and now
two decades have been lapsed from the date of occurrence.
Considering the overall aspect of the case, the appellant is
sentenced for imprisonment already undergone.
14. In view of the above, this appeal is partly allowed with
modification in sentence.
15. Pending I.A., if any stands disposed of.
16. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court records be sent
back to the court concerned for information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi
Dated:-13.01.2025
Amar/-
