[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Pradeep Thakur @ Pallo Thakur vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 April, 2026
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
2026:JHHC:10269
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.41 of 2019
[Against the judgment of conviction dated 18.12.2018 and the order of sentence dated 20.12.2018
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Deoghar in Sessions Trial No.370 of 2012
arising out of Deoghar Town P.S. Case No.226 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No.782 of 2012]
----
Pradeep Thakur @ Pallo Thakur, aged about 66 Years, S/o Upendra Thakur,
resident of Village-Bharko, P.O. Bharko, P.S. Amarpur, District-Banka
(Bihar) .... .... Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... Respondent(s)
----
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
----
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Suraj Singh, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar, A.P.P.
----
By Court:
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant(s) and learned counsel for
the State.
2. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction
dated 18.12.2018 and the order of sentence dated 20.12.2018 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Deoghar in Sessions Trial No.370 of
2012 arising out of Deoghar Town P.S. Case No.226 of 2012, corresponding to
G.R. No.782 of 2012, whereby the appellant has been held guilty and convicted
for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and has been
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years along with a fine of
Rs.5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, further sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for three months.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 11.07.2012, when the informant
was alone at home, the accused Pradeep Thakur @ Pallo Thakur, who was
known to her, came to her house on the pretext of delivering a letter and asked
for tea. While she was preparing tea in the kitchen, he entered with a knife and
attacked her on the neck, face, eyebrow etc. As she tried to escape, he
continued assaulting her. On her alarm, neighbours arrived and took her to
Sadar Hospital, Deoghar for treatment.
2026:JHHC:10269
4. The motive alleged is that the accused had demanded money from her
husband a day earlier, which was refused. Based on these allegations, the
present criminal case has put been put into motion by lodging an FIR on
11.07.2012 being Deoghar Town P.S. Case No.226 of 2012, corresponding to
G.R. No.782 of 2012 under Sections 307/ 450/ 324 & 326 IPC against the
appellant.
5. The police after investigation had filed charge-sheet on 31.07.2012
against the appellant for the offence under Sections 450/ 307/ 324/ 326 of the
Indian Penal Code. After taking cognizance, charge has been framed under
Section 307 IPC and the case was sent before the court of sessions for trail for
which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. To substantiate the allegation, altogether eight witnesses have been
examined.
P.W.-1: Dilip Choudhary is a neighbour of the victim
P.W.-2: Shalini Jha (the victim)
P.W.-3: Yogesh Kumar Jha, the husband of the Informant
P.W.-4: Kanchan Devi
P.W.-5: Prafullit Kujur-the Investigating Officer
P.W.-6: Dr. Arun Kumar, who has treated the informant.
P.W.-7: Pappu Mahtha, who is independent witness.
P.W.-8: Subodh Ram, who is a formal witness.
The short statement of the witnesses are as follow:-
P.W.-1: Dilip Choudhary has deposed in his examination in-
chief that on 11.07.2012 around 12:00-12:15 p.m., he heard
loud cries from Yogesh Jha's house. On looking from the
balcony, he saw the victim coming out of her house, severely
injured and covered in blood, shouting for help. The witness
rushed downstairs and found that a man, later identified as
Pradeep Thakur (also identified as Pradeep Chaudhary), had
been caught by the public with bloodstained clothes. The
witness then took Shalini to Sadar Hospital, Deoghar, along
with another neighbor. The accused present in court was
identified by the witness.
Page | 2 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.41 of 2019
2026:JHHC:10269
In cross examination: this witness has stated that he did not
know the accused earlier and saw him for the first time during
the incident, later identifying him in the court. He did not see
the accused assaulting the victim but only heard her cries and
saw her in an injured, blood stained condition from his balcony.
His statement was recorded by the police on the same day after
returning from the hospital. He came to know the accused's
name later. He denied giving any false statement or deposing
under someone's influence.
P.W.-2: Shalini Jha is the injured victim/informant who has
deposed that the incident occurred on 11 July 2012 around
11:45 a.m.-12:00 noon at her house. The accused, Pradeep
Thakur (a relative of her husband), came to her house on the
pretext of delivering a letter and asked for tea. When she went
to the kitchen, he attacked her from behind with a knife,
causing injuries. She resisted, pushed him, and ran towards the
dining hall shouting for help. The accused followed and
assaulted her repeatedly, including on her face.
Hearing her cries, her neighbor raised alarm, upon which
the accused tried to flee away but was caught by local people.
The victim was taken to Sadar Hospital, Deoghar by neighbors
for treatment. Her statement was recorded by the police in the
hospital, which she signed. The defense objected to marking
the statement as evidence on the ground that it was not in her
handwriting.
In her cross examination she has stated that the victim
identified the accused, Pradeep Thakur, in court as the person
who attacked her. She also stated that a day before the incident,
the accused had demanded money from her husband, and upon
refusal, committed the attack. Her statement was recorded in
the hospital by a police officer, and she handed over a sealed
letter brought by the accused to the police.
She described her house layout and stated that the accused
was known to the family and had visited earlier, with no prior
Page | 3 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.41 of 2019
2026:JHHC:10269
dispute. During the incident, she sustained six injuries--one on
her back and the rest on her face, causing lasting damage.
Blood had fallen in multiple parts of the house. She was not
unconscious during the attack.
She further stated that her statement was recorded again at
her house the same day. She denied all defence suggestions that
no assault took place, that she falsely implicated the accused, or
that her statement was untrue.
P.W.-3: Yogesh Kumar Jha (husband of the Informant) has
deposed that he was in Jamtara when he received information
about the incident and reached Deoghar. Upon reaching the
hospital, he found that the police had already arrived. His
statement was recorded by the police in the hospital around
2:00 P.M., after recording his wife's statement, and later he was
also questioned at his house.
He has stated that he had informed the police that the
accused had demanded money from him but did not specify the
amount. He denied giving details about who called him or from
which phone. He also clarified that he had not named any
person called Deepak in his statement.
He denied the defence suggestions that the accused never
demanded money or that he and his wife had falsely implicated
the accused.
P.W.-4: Kanchan Devi (neighbor of the victim), has fully
supported the case. She stated that on 11 July 2012 around
12:00 noon, she heard the victim screaming and saw through
her window that a man was repeatedly stabbing her, leaving her
covered in blood. She raised alarm, after which neighbors
gathered and caught the accused when he came out of the
house.
She identified the accused, Pradeep, in court as the
assailant. She, along with neighbor Dilip Chaudhary, took the
injured to Sadar Hospital, Deoghar for treatment. In cross-
Page | 4 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.41 of 2019
2026:JHHC:10269
examination, she has stated that the victim was discharged from
the hospital the same day and that she stayed with her there.
P.W.-5: Prafullit Kujur- (Investigating Officer) deposed that
the investigation was entrusted to him by the then Officer-in-
Charge, K.K. Sahu. By that time, K.K. Sahu had already
recovered the knife used in the assault and prepared the seizure
list.
After taking over the investigation, he recorded the further
statement of the victim at Sadar Hospital, Deoghar, and also
recorded the statements of Kanchan Devi and Yogesh Jha there.
He inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the
necessary documents, and recorded statements of other
witnesses. On finding the allegation true, he submitted the
charge-sheet against the accused, Pradeep Thakur.
P.W.-6: Dr. Arun Kumar is the doctor, who has treated the
informant has deposed that on 25.07.2012 at about 12:30 P.M.,
while he was on duty in the OPD of Sadar Hospital, Deoghar,
an injured woman namely, Shalini Jha was brought before him
by another lady for examination. On examination, he found
three stab wounds on her body.
The first injury was on the right side of her back near the
shoulder, the second near the left eyebrow, and the third on the
left cheek near the ear. All the injuries were caused by a sharp-
edged weapon. He opined that the injuries were simple in
nature and had been inflicted within six hours prior to
examination. He further stated that, on the request of the police,
he prepared the injury report, which was marked as Exhibit
Pw/6-A, and put his signature on it.
In his cross examination- he has stated that the injury report
was prepared later (on 25.07.2012) based on his earlier notes,
without re-examining the patient, after receiving a police
requisition. The report was delayed as he was awaiting the
patient's progress. He confirmed that the injured left the
Page | 5 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.41 of 2019
2026:JHHC:10269
hospital against medical advice and he did not know her
personally.
He denied preparing any false report and clarified that none
of the injuries, either individually or collectively, were
sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
P.W.-7: Pappu Mahtha, who is independent witness and a
seizure list witness, who identified his signature on the seizure
list (Exhibit-3/1).
In his cross examination he has deposed that he has signed on
a plain paper on the direction of police. No seizure has been
done before him.
P.W.-8: Subodh Ram, who is a formal witness, produced the
seized material before the court, namely, a blood stained knife
with a blue handle (Ext-I), bearing a label of Deoghar Town
P.S. Case No. 226/2012.
7. Thus, none of the witnesses are eye-witness except the alleged victim,
who is P.W.-2.
8. Referring to the above evidence, learned counsel for the appellant has
assailed the judgment of conviction on the following grounds:-
i. As per the witnesses and the F.I.R., the date of occurrence is
11.07.2012 while the deposition of P.W.-6, who is Doctor,
suggest that the victim has been brought before him on
25.07.2012 and he has found three simple injuries and the age of
the injury was within six hours.
ii. The time of crime itself is in doubt.
iii. Even the deposition of the Investigating Officer suggests that the
alleged weapon of crime has not been sent for forensic
examination although some red marks has been found there.
iv. Further, as per the P.W.-4, who claims to be an eye-witness, the
entire neighbours has been assembled and the accused has been
caught hold at the spot itself but such statement gets falsified from
the other witnesses i.e. P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and the victim herself.
9. Thus, if the evidence of the witnesses have closely scrutinized, then it
will be evident that it is nothing but false allegation as the statement given by
Page | 6 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.41 of 2019
2026:JHHC:10269
them are totally contradictory in material aspect and further the time of
occurrence as deposed by the doctor itself falsify the allegation made by the
alleged victim.
10. Learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of conviction
and submitted that there is an eye-witness to the incident but he could not
contradict the statement given by the police. Further, there is no forensic
examination although the I.O. has stated that the weapon of the crime has been
seized and it was having some red mark upon it.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record,
it appears that P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 are the hearsay witness, P.W.-3 and P.W.-4
are the alleged eye-witness to the incident but their story is not supported by the
P.W.-1 and P.W.-2. The time of occurrence got falsified by the evidence of the
doctor. Even there is no forensic examination regarding the weapon of crime
which has been seized. Although it has been stated that there were so many
independent witnesses but none were examined either by the Investigating
Officer or has been produced in the Court.
12. In view of above discussion, this Court finds that the judgment of
conviction is not sustainable. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated
18.12.2018 and the order of sentence dated 20.12.2018 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-V, Deoghar in Sessions Trial No.370 of 2012 arising
out of Deoghar Town P.S. Case No.226 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No.782
of 2012 is, hereby, quashed and set aside.
13. In the result, the present criminal appeal stands allowed and disposed of.
14. The appellant is on bail and as such he is discharged from the liability of
his bail bonds.
15. Let the Trial Court Records be sent to the court concerned forthwith,
along with the copy of this judgment.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
The Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi
Dated: 09th April, 2026
Shahid/NAFR
Uploaded on 16.04.2026
Page | 7 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.41 of 2019
