Sonu Kumar Sah vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 3527 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Sonu Kumar Sah vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 March, 2025

Author: Sanjay Prasad

Bench: Sanjay Prasad

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
             Criminal Revision No. 267 of 2025
                            With
                  I.A. No. 2730 of 2025
                          ---------

1. Sonu Kumar Sah

2. Ranjeet Kr. Sah @ Ranjeet Kumar Sah

3. Pradip Sah

4. Tej Narayan Sah

..... Petitioners Versus

1.The State of Jharkhand

2.Vikash Kumar Gupta ..... Opp. Parties

----------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. S.P. Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.S. Sahay, A.P.P. For the O.P.No.2 : Mr. Vikash Kr. Gupta, Adv.

(i.e. O.P. No. 2 In Person)

---------

04/27.03.2025 This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners challenging the judgment dated 20th December, 2024, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2024 by Shri Shatrunjay Kumar Singh, learned Addl. Sessions Judge-V, Dumka, by which appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed, thereby affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.02.2024 passed by Shri Shailendra Kumar Napit, then learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dumka in G.R. No. 550 of 2020, in connection with T.R. No. 575 of 2024, arising out of Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 26 of 2019, by which the petitioners, along with one Lokesh Kumar Sah, have been convicted for the offences under

Sections 323, 325, 341, 504/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo S.I. for Three (03) years, S.I. for one month and S.I. for One year for the offences committed u/s 325/34 of I.P.C., 341/34 and 504/34 I.P.C. respectively.

The Petitioner No. 2, namely Ranjeet Kr. Sah has further been directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C.

2. The instant Interlocutory Application is filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the BNSS, 2023 for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail during pendency of this Criminal Revision Application.

3. As per F.I.R., it is alleged that on 21.03.2019, while the Informant, namely Vikash Kr. Gupta was in his house, then at around 6.30-7.00 p.m., his neighbours, namely Sonu Kr. Sah (i.e. Petitioner No.1), Pradip Sah (i.e. Petitioner No.3), Ranjeet Kr. Sah (i.e. Petitioner No. 2) and Tej Narayan Sah @ Tuntun Sah (i.e. Petitioner No.4) entered into his house and started abusing his father and mother and started assaulting them and further his mother was assaulted by Stick due to which the hand of his mother was fractured. It is also alleged that the Informant and his father had also sustained some injuries. It is also alleged that the accused persons had torn some urgent papers in his house and had

also committed loot in his office and the dispute is because of handling of a case of Raimal Company.

4. Heard Mr. S.P. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned A.P.P. and Mr. Vikash Kr. Gupta ( i.e. O.P. No.2 In-Person), learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 and who is also the Informant of this case.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned judgments and order of sentence passed by the learned Courts below are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that there is contradiction in the F.I.R. and statements of prosecution witnesses. It is submitted that although in the F.I.R. it was stated about the only occurrence between 6.30 to 7.00 p.m. on 21.03.2019 on the eve of Holi, however, during the evidence recorded before the learned Court below, it was stated that earlier the petitioners and one Lokesh Sah had entered into their house at around 06.00 p.m. in the evening on 21.03.2019 and had abused and assaulted them and for which Police had arrived and after the Police left the house of the Informant, the accused persons again entered into his house on 21.03.2019 and they had assaulted him, his father and his mother and due to which the hand of his mother got fractured. It is further submitted that even the Prosecution witnesses, i.e. P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, namely Vikash Kr. Gupta, Raj Kumar Sah and Mala Devi had stated in their evidence that due to the

assault made by Ranjeet Kumar by "Lathi", the hand of the mother of the Informant-O.P. No.2 was fractured. It is submitted that the injury sustained by Vikash Kumar Gupta, i.e. P.W.1 was simple in nature. It is submitted that the F.I.R. is an afterthought and the Injury Report of P.W.3, i.e. Mala Devi, i.e. mother of the Informant is a manufactured document because the Investigating Officer, namely Krishna Kanhaiya, who was examined as P.W.4, has stated in his evidence that he has started investigation of this case on 22.03.2019 by writing the Case Diary, but time has not been mentioned and he had not mentioned about the issuance of requisition slip of injury sustained by the Injured person in his case diary, which finds place at Para 11 of the judgment of the learned Trial Court below. It is further submitted that P.W.5, namely Dr. Sanjay Kr. Mishra is the Doctor, who had examined the injured persons, had found injury on the person of the injured, i.e. P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3, namely Vikash Kr. Gupta, Raj Kumar Sah and Mala Devi respectively, however, no X-Ray report was produced during the trial to show that the hand of the injured Mala Devi, i.e. P.W.3 was fractured and Injury Report reveals that P.W.3, namely Mala Devi has sustained swelling and abrasion due to the assault made by the petitioners. Thus, the prosecution has not properly proved the injury of fracture in the hand of P.W.3, namely Mala Devi. It is submitted that no

independent witness has been examined by the prosecution apart from P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3, namely Vikash Kr. Gupta, Raj Kumar Sah and Mala Devi respectively, although they have stated that several other people were present at the time of occurrence in their evidence. It is submitted that the petitioners are in custody since 05.02.2025, hence they may be enlarged on bail.

6. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that the petitioners are named in the F.I.R. and they had assaulted the Informant and his father and mother. It is submitted that the mother of the Informant had sustained grievous injury in her left hand and her hand was fractured, which has been proved by P.W.5, i.e. Dr. Sanjay Kr. Mishra and thus, the prosecution has successfully established its case against the petitioners. It is submitted that the P.W.1, i.e. the Informant, namely Vikash Kr. Gupta and P.W.2, namely Raj Kumar Sah, i.e. father of the Informant and P.W.3, Mala Devi i.e. the Mother of the Informant were all injured persons and they have fully supported the prosecution case and hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioners may be rejected.

7. The learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2, who is also the Informant of this case, is present In- Person and submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned judgments and sentence passed by the learned Appellate Court and the learned Trial Court

below. It is submitted that the left hand of the mother of the Informant was fractured and the X-Ray Plate and report were given by the Doctor, who had not produced the same report before the Trial Court below. It is submitted that even the tooth of the mother of the Informant had been broken and the same was also handed over to the Doctor, but it could not be produced during trial.

8. It is submitted that the petitioners had entered into his house at around 06.00 p.m. in the evening on 21.03.2019 and had assaulted him and his family members and for which police had also instituted a case under Section 107 Cr.P.C., which is still pending among the parties. It is submitted that even the tooth of the mother of the Informant had been broken and she had sustained grievous injury on her hand. It is submitted that the Doctor, i.e. P.W.5 fully proved the injury of his mother and has stated that Injury No.3 is grievous in nature and hence, this is a case of serious assault on the Informant and his Family members and hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioners may be rejected.

9. Perused the Records of this case, I.A. No. 2730 of 2025 and considered the submissions of both sides.

10. It appears from the F.I.R. that the Informant has instituted the case for the first occurrence taking place between 6.30 to 7.00 p.m. only in the evening of 21.03.2019 and in which he

had stated that the petitioners and one Lokesh Sah had entered into his house and assaulted him, his father and his mother, due to which they had sustained injuries and left hand of his mother was fractured. However, while P.W.1, namely Vikash Kr. Gupta, i.e. the Informant was examined, he had stated that the petitioners had earlier arrived at his residence around 6.00 p.m. on 21.03.2019 and had assaulted him and his parents and for which the Police had instituted a case. Thereafter, when the police left, petitioners again illegally entered into his house on 21.03.2019 and assaulted them, due to which the hand of his mother was fractured.

Thus, there appears to be a contradiction in the allegation made in the F.I.R. and the statement made during the trial. It appears that even P.W.2 and P.W.3, namely Raj Kumar Sah and Mala Devi respectively had stated and corroborated the evidence of the Informant to the extent of the first occurrence.

11. So far injury of P.W.3, namely Mala Devi, i.e. mother of the Informant is concerned, It reveals from injury report of P.W.3 that Doctor, i.e. P.W.5 has found certain injuries on her person, which are as follows:

"1.swelling over left writ joint-1" X ½ "

2.abrasion over left elbow joint 1" X ½"

3.abrasion over left forearm 1" X ½"

4.bleeding from gums with lost of tooth (upper incisor)

The age of injury-within 6 hours, caused by hard and blunt substance. As per the opinion of doctor and on report received from Dumka Sadar hospital, injury no. 1 of PW 3 was grievous in nature. Whereas injuries no.2 and 3 are simple in nature. During cross examination by defence he has stated that there is no requisition for x-ray to be done is mentioned in the injury report."

12. It appears from the evidence of the Investigating Officer that he has not issued any requisition slip for examining the injured persons, however, the Doctor had examined the injured on 21.03.2019 at 08.15 hours, i.e. within six hours, though the I.O. himself has admitted to have not issued any requisition slip for examination by the Doctor.

13. It also appears that during trial neither the X-Ray Plate nor the X-Ray report of the injured Mala Devi, i.e. P.W.3 were produced with regard to the fracture of the left forearm of P.W. 3 Mala Devi.

14. It also transpires that even the lost tooth were also not produced during trial before the Court below. However, the same has been considered neither by the Trial Court nor by the Appellate Court.

15. As the hearing of this Criminal Revision Application may be pending for some period and as such, therefore, this Court refrains itself from giving any finding on the point of conviction under Section 325 and other Section of the I.P.C. as the same has to be decided on the merits of the case.

16. However, it appears from evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3, namely Vikash Kumar Gupta, Raj Kumar Sah and Mala Devi respectively that there is specific allegation against only Ranjeet Kumar Sah, i.e. Petitioner No.2 for assaulting Mala Devi, i.e. mother of the Informant on her left arm by Stick, for which she is said to have sustained fracture in her left hand, whereas other accused persons are said to have assaulted the Informant and his father.

17. It appears that the injury sustained by the Informant, i.e. P.W.1 and Raj Kumar Sah, i.e. P.W.2 are simple in nature.

18. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the prosecution has failed to produce the X-Ray report and X-Ray Plate before the Court below with regard to grievous injury on the person of the injured Mala Devi, i.e. mother of the Informant this Court is inclined to suspend the sentence of the petitioners.

19. Accordingly, the sentence awarded to the petitioners, namely Sonu Kumar Sah, Ranjeet Kr. Sah @ Ranjeet Kumar Sah, Pradip Sah and Tej Narayan Sah is hereby suspended during pendency of this Criminal Revision Application and the petitioners named above are directed to be released on Bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Shri Shailendra Kumar Napit, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,

Dumka/Or his Successor Court in connection with G.R. No. 550 of 2020, corresponding to T.R. No. 575 of 2024, arising out of Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 26 of 2019.

20. Thus, I.A. No. 2730 of 2025 allowed and stands disposed of.

Criminal Revision No. 267 of 2025

21. Admit

22. Call for the legible scanned copy of the L.C.R.

23. Put up this case after Eight (08) weeks.

(Sanjay Prasad, J.) s.m.