Jharkhand High Court
Jaipal Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 May, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 761 of 2024
With
I.A. No. 246 of 2025
----------
1.Jaipal Singh
2.Shila Devi
3.Kakku Singh
4.Dablu Singh
5.Pintu Singh
6.Dinu Singh ..... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
With
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 1477 of 2005
---------
1.Jaipal Singh
2.Digamber Singh @ Bittu Singh
3.Pintu Singh
4.Dabloo Singh
5.Dinu Singh ..... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
----------
For the Appellants : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P.
(In Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 761 of 2024)
Mrs. Shweta Singh, A.P.P.
(In Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 1477 of 2005)
For the Informant : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate
---------
05/01.05.2025 This Criminal Appeal has been filed on
behalf of the Appellants challenging the judgment of
conviction dated 23.10.2024 and Sentence dated
25.10.2024, passed by Shri Rajendra Kumar Sinha, the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Deoghar, in
Sessions Trial No. 67 of 2018, arising out of Jasidih
P.S. Case No.260 of 2010, corresponding to CNR No.
JHDG01-000796-2018, by which the Appellants have
been convicted for the offences under Sections
148/323/324/455, read with Section 149 of I.P.C. and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for Two (02) years for the
offence under Section 148 I.P.C., R.I. for Six (06)
months for the offence under Section 323 read with
Section 149 of I.P.C., R.I. for Three (03) years for the
offence under Section 324 read with Section 149 of
I.P.C. along with fine of Rs.5,000/- each and R.I. for
Seven (07) years for the offence under Section 455 read
with Section 149 of IPC.
2. The instant Interlocutory Application has
been filed on behalf of the appellants for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail during pendency of this
Criminal Appeal.
3. Heard Mr. A.K. Sahni, learned counsel
for the Appellants, Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned counsel
for the State and Mr. Rupesh Singh learned counsel for
the Informant, assisted by Mr. Sudhanshu Dev, learned
counsel.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction
and sentence passed by the learned Court below are
illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law.
It is submitted that the appellants have been implicated
due to previous enmity. It is submitted that the main
allegation is levelled against the Appellant No.1, namely
Jaipal Singh and so far as other appellants, i.e.
Appellant No.s 2 to 6, namely Shila Devi, Kakku Singh,
Dablu Singh, Pintu Singh and Dinu Singh respectively
are concerned, there is no allegation of specific overt act
against them. It is submitted that the independent
witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and
the husband of the Informant is not an eye witness of
the occurrence. It is submitted that the injury
sustained by the Informant, i.e. Archana Devi was
found to be simple in nature. It is submitted that out of
the two injuries sustained by injured P.W. 2, namely
Lakhan Singh, one injury on the left elbow joint was
simple in nature and the other one on the right hand
was grievous and the other injured persons had
sustained simple injuries. Learned counsel for the
appellants has also submitted that the husband and
son of the Informant (i.e. namely Archana Devi) are
accused in a murder case instituted by Appellant No.5,
namely Pintu Singh in the year 2023, being Jasidih P.S.
Case No. 329 of 2023. It is submitted that the
appellants are in custody since 23.10.2024, i.e. for
about more than Six months and earlier also they had
remained in custody for some period, i.e. around 2-3
months and hence, they may be enlarged on bail.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has
opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is
direct allegation against all the appellants for
trespassing into the house of the Informant and for
assaulting her and other injured persons, i.e. P.W.2
and P.W.3, namely Lakhan Singh and Shailendra
Singh. It is submitted that Doctor, i.e. P.W.6, namely
Dr.A. Bandhan has fully supported the case about the
injuries sustained by the Informant and the other
injured persons, hence the prayer for bail may be
rejected.
6. Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel for
the Informant, after adopting the submissions of the
learned A.P.P. has further submitted that the
appellants have rightly been convicted for the offence
under Sections 148/323/324/455, read with Section
149 of I.P.C. and it is submitted that the appellants had
trespassed by jumping into the house of the Informant
and caused injuries on her person and also to other
persons. It is submitted that even two other persons,
namely Lakhan Singh and Shailendra Singh, i.e. P.W.2
and P.W.3 were also injured and one of the injured
persons, i.e. Lakhan Singh, i.e. P.W.2 had sustained
grievous injury on his person. It is submitted that the
appellants have got previous criminal antecedent and
one Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 1477 of 2005 is also
pending before this Court in respect of the same
appellants and they are muscle men and have several
criminal antecedents and people in the area are fearful
and apprehensive of their conduct. It is submitted that
though specific allegations were levelled against
Appellant No.1, namely Jaipal Singh for causing injury
to the Informant, i.e. P.W.5 and the Injured Lakhan
Singh and Shailendra Singh, i.e. P.W.2 and P.W.3, but
in view of the provisions of Section 149 I.P.C. the
offences were committed with common object and
therefore, the other appellants can also be held guilty
as they were present at the time of the said offence. It is
submitted that the criminal case against the husband
and son of the Informant was filed later on, hence, the
prayer for bail of the appellants may be rejected.
7. Perused the Lower Court Record of the
case and considered the submission of both sides.
8. It appears from the F.I.R. that the
appellants had entered into the house of the Informant
in the intervening night of 27/28.11.2010 at about
00.30 hours and the Appellant No.1, namely Jaipal
Singh had inflicted Farsa blow on the Informant,
namely Archana Devi, i.e. P.W.5 who tried to save
herself and the Farsa hit her on the nose, due to which
she sustained cut injury on her nose and when the
brother-in-law of her Devar, namely Lakhan Singh tried
to save her, then Jaipal Singh, i.e. Appellant No.1 also
assaulted him with Farsa, due to which both the hands
of the injured Lakhan Singh, P.W.2 were said to be
fractured and then her Devar-Shailender Singh, P.W.3
came to save her, then he was also assaulted by the
accused persons, i.e. the appellants.
9. From perusal of the evidence of Doctor,
namely Dr. A.Bandhan, examined as P.W.6, it would
appear that the Informant, i.e., P.W.5 has sustained
only one injury on her nose, which was found to be
simple in nature by sharp cutting weapon, whereas
P.W.2, namely Lakhan Singh sustained three injuries
and Injury No.1 was found simple, but Injury No. 2 and
Injury No.3 were found grievous in nature and injured
Shailendra Singh, i.e. P.W.3 had sustained three
injuries, which were found to be simple in nature
caused by hard and blunt object.
10. It appears from the evidence of P.W.5,
i.e. the Informant, namely Archana Devi that she has
mainly alleged against Jaipal Singh, i.e. Appellant No.1
for inflicting Farsa blow on her, due to which she had
sustained cut injury on her nose and even Lakhan
Singh, i.e. P.W.2, also sustained injury by Farsa blow by
the Appellant No.1, namely Jaipal Singh, due to which she
became unconscious. She has not stated during her
evidence that her husband was present at the time of
occurrence.
11. P.W.4 is Subodh Singh, who is husband of
the Informant and he also stated that Jaipal Singh, i.e.
Appellant No.1 had inflicted Farsa blow on Archana, i.e.
the Informant, due to which she sustained injury on her
nose.
P.W.2, namely Lakhan Singh also sustained
two injuries on his elbow and arm by Lathi and rod.
12. Even P.W.3, namely Shailendra Singh, has
specifically stated that the accused persons had entered
into the house of the Informant by scaling the boundary
and Jaipal Singh, i.e. Appellant No.1 had inflicted Farsa
blow on his Bhabhi, i.e. the Informant, namely Archana
Devi and said Jaipal Singh, i.e. Appellant No.1 had also
assaulted his Sala, i.e. Brother-in-law, namely Lakhan
Singh, i.e. P.W.2.
13. This Court is not referring to subsequent
events relating to the F.I.R. lodged by Appellant No.5,
namely Pintu Singh against the husband and son of the
Informant, being Jasidih P.S. Case No. 330 of 2023.
However, it can be seen that both the sides are on litigating
terms and there is enmity between the parties.
14. It appears that one of the appellants is a
lady, i.e. Appellant No.2, namely Shila Devi and it may not
be possible for a lady to jump the boundary of the
Informant, which appears to be improbable.
15. Thus, it is evident that Jaipal Singh, i.e.
Appellant No.1 has been named specifically for causing
injury upon the Informant, namely Archana Devi, i.e. P.W.5
and also upon P.W.2 and P.W.3, namely Lakhan Singh and
Shailendra Singh and accordingly, the prayer for bail on
behalf of Jaipal Singh, i.e. Appellant No.1 of Criminal
Appeal (S.J.) No. 761 of 2024 is rejected.
16. So far as other appellants, i.e. Appellant
No.s 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, namely Shila Devi, Kakku Singh,
Dablu Singh, Pintu Singh and Dinu Singh respectively are
concerned, there are general and omnibus allegation
levelled against them for assaulting the Informant and
injured persons and no specific overt act is alleged against
them.
17. Under the circumstances, the sentence
awarded to the Appellant No.s 2 to 6, namely Shila Devi,
Kakku Singh, Dablu Singh, Pintu Singh and Dinu Singh, is
hereby suspended during pendency of this Criminal Appeal
and the Appellants, namely Shila Devi, Kakku Singh,
Dablu Singh, Pintu Singh and Dinu Singh 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 learned
Additional Sessions Judge-III, Deoghar, in Sessions Trial
No. 67 of 2018, arising out of Jasidih P.S. Case No.260 of
2010, corresponding to CNR No. JHDG01-000796-2018.
18. Thus, I.A. No. 246 of 2025 is allowed and
stands disposed of.
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 761 of 2024 & Criminal
19. Let Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 1477 of 2005
be separated from this Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 761 of
2024.
20. List both the cases, i.e. criminal Appeal
(S.J.) No. 761 of 2024 and Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 1477
of 2005 on 6th May, 2025.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
s.m.
