[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Bharat Chandra Apat vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 April, 2026
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:11190-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Acquittal Appeal No. 67 of 2025
Bharat Chandra Apat, S/o Puran Chandra Apat, R/o Vill-
Bara Jamda (Near Petrol Pump), P.O.- Gua, O.P.- Bara
Jamda, Dist.- West Singhbhum. ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Pankaj Khilar, S/o Ishwar Khilar, R/o Vill- Kotgarh, P.O. &
P.S.- Jeteya, Dist.- West Singhbhum.
... Respondents
----
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
----
For the Appellant : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Adv.
For the State : A.P.P.
For the Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Adv.
----
Dated : 15/04/2026
Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. :
1. Heard Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant
and Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent no. 2.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated
19-05-2025 passed by Mohammad Shakir, learned Sessions
Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in S.T. Case No. 213/2024,
whereby and whereunder, the respondent no. 2 has been
acquitted from the charge levelled against him.
3. The prosecution case arises out of a written report
submitted by the informant/appellant in which it has been
alleged that on 17-10-2023, he had come on leave to his house
at Quarter No. 3R/34 Noamundi and on 21-10-2023, while he
was visiting the Pandal, the respondent no. 2 who is his brother-
ACQ. APP. NO. 67 OF 2025 1
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:11190-DB
in-law in relation came and stabbed him on his abdomen and
neck. The informant had later on gone for treatment to Tata Steel
Hospital, Noamundi.
4. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Noamundi P.S. Case
No. 37/2023 was instituted under Section 325, 341, 307/34 IPC.
On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted and
after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court
of Sessions where it was registered as S.T. No. 213/2024. Charge
was framed against the respondent no. 2 under Section 307 IPC
which was read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution has examined as many as eleven
witnesses in support of its case:
P.W.1 Bharat Chandra Apat is the informant and the
victim who has stated that on 17-10-2023 he had come to
Noamundi during the Durga Puja holidays. On 21-10-2023, he
had gone to the Central Camp Puja Pandal and at about
08:00PM, he was meeting his brother who had come from the
village when the respondent no. 2 came, embraced him and
wanted to know about his well-being which was replied by him
in the affirmative and he started conversing with his brother. He
has stated that the respondent no. 2 had taken out a blade-like
pointed device and assaulted him on his neck and abdomen and
when he raised a cry of alarm, the respondent no. 2 as well as
his brother fled away. He thereafter went to Noamundi Hospital
where his treatment was done. He has proved his written report
which has been marked as Exhibit P-1.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he has a
matrimonial dispute with his wife and his wife has left him after
three months of his marriage. It is true that he has instituted this
case against his parents-in-law. He had not stated in his written
report or in his restatement that respondent no. 2, after having
ACQ. APP. NO. 67 OF 2025 2
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:11190-DB
small talk with him, had assaulted him with a pointed weapon
on his neck and abdomen. At the time of the incident, some
persons were present.
P.W.2 Kamal Polai has stated that while he was going to
attend his duty, he had seen the informant and respondent no.
2 involved in a scuffle and blood was coming out from the wounds
sustained by the informant. He has identified the accused
respondent no. 2 as Vikash.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that his statement
was not recorded by the Police. It was dark at the time when the
incident had taken place. He had not seen any tussle between
the informant and the respondent no. 2. He is aware about the
marital dispute between the informant and his wife.
P.W.3 Selesh Nag @ Shailesh Nag has stated that on
21-10-2023 at about 08:00-09:00PM in the Durga Puja Pandal,
Noamundi, the informant and the respondent no. 2 had hugged
each other in course of which the respondent no. 2 had stabbed
the informant on his abdomen and neck after which the
respondent no. 2 had fled away. He has identified the respondent
no. 2 as the person who had stabbed the informant.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that his statement
was never recorded by the Police. He has knowledge that the
informant has left his wife. The respondent no. 2 is the brother-
in-law of the informant. The Police had not recovered any
incriminating articles from the place of occurrence. It is correct
to say that there has been a crowd at the place of occurrence.
P.W.4 Guru Charan Birua was posted as a Panchayat
Secretary at Majgaon and no untoward incident had occurred
while he was on duty in the control room. He has failed to identify
the respondent no. 2 who was produced through video
conferencing.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he does not have
ACQ. APP. NO. 67 OF 2025 3
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:11190-DB
any personal knowledge about the incident.
P.W.5 Bhuneshwar Parida @ Bhuwan Parida has been
declared hostile by the prosecution.
P.W.6 Dr. Umang Bharadwaj was posted as a Medical
Officer in Tata Steel Hospital and on 08-11-2023, he had
examined Bharat Chandra Apat and had found the following
injuries on his person:
i. Cut injury 14 cm back of neck- Grievous sharp
edge tissue.
ii. Cut injury 05 cm back of neck-Grievous sharp
edge skin deep.
iii. Cut injury 07 cm right side of face-Grievous sharp
edge tissue deep.
iv. Cut injury 17cm , 03cm, 06 cm, 05cm and plus
multiple scratches on front and right side of belly.
All the injuries were caused by a sharp-edged weapon. He
has proved the injury report which has been marked as
Exhibit- P-2.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that the injured had
himself come to the hospital for examination and treatment.
P.W.7 Shiv Charan Sandil, P.W.8 Ladura Soren and
P.W.9 Gulshan Sinku did not support the case of the
prosecution and were declared hostile by the prosecution.
P.W.10 Manoj Sharma has stated that during Dussehra, a
control room was established by the Deputy Commissioner and
he was present in the control room on the order of the
Sub-Divisional Officer. On the next day, he came to know of a
quarrel which had taken place in the village of Vishwakarma
Barik.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that his statement
was not recorded by the Police.
P.W.11 Karunakar Tiwary was posted as an Assistant
ACQ. APP. NO. 67 OF 2025 4
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:11190-DB
Sub-Inspector of Police in Noamundi P.S. and he was given the
charge of investigation. He has proved the endorsement on the
written report which has been marked as Exhibit P-1/1/PW-11.
The formal FIR has been proved and marked as Exhibit- P-3/PW-
11. After taking over investigation, he had inspected the place of
occurrence which is adjacent to the Central Camp Durga Puja
Pandal. He had recorded the statements of the witnesses and had
also enclosed in the case diary the photographs of the injured.
On conclusion of investigation, he has submitted charge sheet.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that the witness Shiv
Charan Sandil had stated before him that the injury sustained
by the informant was on account of the barbed wires and he has
belief that due to a scuffle, the informant had fallen down on the
barbed wires. He had not recorded the statement of any of the
volunteers of Central Camp Noamundi. He had not seized any
blood-stained earth or any sharp cutting object. None of the
witnesses have stated before him that the assault was committed
with a pointed knife. It is true that the witness Shailesh Nag had
never stated before him that while hugging the informant, the
respondent no. 2 had caused an assault upon the informant with
a knife. The informant had not stated before him that after the
informant and the respondent no. 2 embraced themselves, the
informant started talking with his brother when the respondent
no. 2 attacked him with a pointed weapon on his neck and
abdomen.
6. The statement of the accused/respondent no. 2 was
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he has denied his
complicity in the commission of the offence.
7. It has been submitted by Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned
counsel for the informant/appellant that the informant had
specifically named the respondent no. 2 as the person who had
stabbed him and the injury report is supportive of the said fact.
ACQ. APP. NO. 67 OF 2025 5
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:11190-DB
P.W.3 is also an eyewitness to the occurrence, but the evidence
of P.W.1 and P.W.3 have not at all been appropriately considered
by the learned trial court.
8. Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent no. 2 has submitted that the identification of the
respondent no. 2 as the assailant has not been proved by the
prosecution. The prosecution has developed its story in course of
trial. It has been submitted that since the respondent no. 2 is the
brother-in-law of the informant and since the informant does not
have a particularly good relationship with his wife, the same
would further strengthen the false implication of respondent
no. 2.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides
and have also perused the trial court record.
10. The incident had taken place on 21-10-2023, while the FIR
was instituted on 24-10-2023 after a delay of 3 days but no
explanation has been furnished with respect to such delay. It
also appears that the information of the alleged incident was
received in the Police Station in the night of 21-10-2023 and
22-10-2023, but despite such information no case was lodged
immediately. There also appears to be a major contradiction with
respect to the manner of occurrence and the presence of the
persons at the time of the occurrence. In his evidence as P.W. 1,
the informant has not stated about the presence of P.W. 2 and
P.W. 5. P.W. 5 has been declared hostile by the prosecution,
while P.W. 2 has identified the respondent no. 2 as Vikash. P.W.
11 is the Investigating Officer who has denied of P.W. 1 stating
before him that the respondent no. 2 had come, hugged him and
asked him about his well-being and when P.W. 1 started talking
with his brother, the respondent no. 2 had attacked him with a
blade like weapon. P.W. 3 also claims himself to be an eyewitness
but his presence has not been noted by P.W.1. P.W.11 has stated
ACQ. APP. NO. 67 OF 2025 6
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:11190-DB
that P.W.3 had never disclosed before him that when P.W. 1 and
the respondent No. 2 hugged each other, the respondent no. 2
had assaulted the informant with a knife. Apparently, there are
no eyewitnesses to the occurrence and the evidence of P.W.1
seems to suffer from major contradictions with respect to the
manner of occurrence coupled with the unexplained delay of 3
days in lodging the First Information Report and these loopholes
in the prosecution case have been appropriately considered by
the learned trial court and there being no reasons to differ with
such findings, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal which
consequently stands dismissed.
11. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands closed.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)
(PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.)
Dated: 15th April, 2026.
Preet/-
Uploaded on: 18 /04/2026.
ACQ. APP. NO. 67 OF 2025 7
