[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Harihar Thakur vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 February, 2026
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
2026:JHHC:5854-DB
2026:JHHC:2269-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 422 of 2003
[Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 26th
February, 2003 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pakur in Sessions Case
No. 180 of 2001 and 32 of 2001]
--------
1. Harihar Thakur, S/o Chatur Thakur, R/o-Vill.- Trikoni, P.S.- Litipara,
Dist.- Pakur.
2. Arjune Thakur, S/o. Sudhir Thakur, R/o. Vill.- Barakadena, P.S.- Barhait,
Dist.- Sahebganj.
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-----
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
--------
For the Appellants : Mr. Rana Surjit Singh, Advocate
Ms. Rita Kumari Mishra, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. R.C.P. Sah, Advocate
Mr. C. A. Bardhan, Advocate
--------
JUDGEMENT
C.A.V. on 04.12.2025 Pronounced on 27 /02/2026
Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J:
1. The instant Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and
order dated 26th February, 2003 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pakur
in Sessions Case No. 180 of 2001 and 32 of 2001, whereby and
whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for the offences under
Sections 307/34 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the
Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years
for the offence under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C., imprisonment for 7
2026:JHHC:5854-DB
years for the offence under Section 397 of the I.P.C. and imprisonment for
3 years for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. All the
sentences are directed to run concurrently.
Factual Matrix:-
2. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 15.12.2000, at
about 06:00 P.M., the informant Umakant Sah (PW-9) riding on his newly
purchased Rajdoot motorcycle of black colour reached near Trikoni river
at Village Trikoni, then he saw in the light of his motorcycle, three
persons were standing on the road in his front. In the slow speed of
motorcycle, the informant saw Arjun Thakur and Harihar Thakur both the
appellants and one unknown person in the light of his motorcycle. It is
alleged that Harihar Thakur (Appellant No. 1) stopped the motorcycle of
the informant abusing in filthy language and saying that he has ruined his
medical practice and ordered to Arjun Thakur (appellant no. 2) to shoot
fire at the informant Umakant Sah. It is further alleged that Arjun Thakur
(appellant no. 2) fired at the informant by a pistol which hit on the back of
the informant and came out from the side of stomach, due to which he fell
down from his motorcycle, then Harihar Thakur (appellant no. 1) and the
unknown person started inflicting knife blows on the temporal region and
back of the informant with the intention to kill him. Thereafter, all the
three miscreants fled away taking the motorcycle of the informant. It is
further alleged that hearing the alarm raised by the informant and sound of
firing, the informant‟s son Mithlesh Kr. Sah, along with his mother and
neighbours approached to the place of occurrence. The informant narrated
about the occurrence to them. Thereafter, family members of the
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 422 of 2003
2026:JHHC:5854-DB
informant brought him to St. Luke‟s Mission Hospital at Hiranpur for
treatment. It is further alleged that on earlier occasions also Harihar
Thakur (appellant no. 1) had threatened the informant on the point of
private medical practice.
3. On the basis of Fardbeyan of informant namely Umakant Sah,
recorded by S.I. Ved Prakash Mehta O.C. Hiranpur P.S. at St. Luke‟s
Mission Hospital, General Ward on 15.12.2000 at 21:00 hrs., formal
F.I.R. was registered as Littipara P.S. Case No. 39 of 2000 dated
16.12.2000 for the offences under Sections 307/34 and 397 of the I.P.C.
and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
4. After completion of the investigation of the case, charge-sheet was
submitted against the appellants, finding no clue of the unknown person
involved in this case. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions
where S.T. No. 180 of 2001 and 32 of 2001 was registered, where the
accused persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
5. Trial commenced, after conclusion of the trial, impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence was passed which has been assailed in
this appeal.
6. Heard Mr. Rana Surjit Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
appellants and Mr. Saket Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State as well as
Mr. R.C.P. Sah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
Submissions on behalf of appellants: -
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant assailing the
impugned judgement and order has contended that all together 10
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 422 of 2003
2026:JHHC:5854-DB
witnesses were examined by the prosecution but except PW-9 the
informant Umakant Sah, all other witnesses are hearsay witnesses.
PW-10 is the Investigating Officer, who has conducted only partial
investigation. The main Investigating Officer has not been examined in
this case who has conducted substantial part of the investigation.
PW-2, PW-7 and PW-8 are brother, son and wife of the informant
respectively, while PW-4 and PW-5 are witnesses to the seizure list of
blood stained soil.
The sole independent witness is PW-1 Balai Marandi, who is also
hearsay witness from the informant, but he was not interrogated by the
I.O. during the investigation.
It is further submitted that there was professional rivalry between
appellant no. 1 Harihar Thakur and the informant, that is the root cause for
false implication of the appellants.
The sole eye witness informant-cum-injured has categorically
admitted that he has sustained as many as 16 injuries on his body which
does not find corroboration from his medical report.
It is further submitted that the informant has got his first aid
treatment at St. Luke‟s Mission Hospital, Hiranpur, wherein no fire arms
injury was found on his body as per injury report proved as Exhibit-2.
It is further submitted that the informant has given self-
contradictory statement regarding manner of occurrence. He states that
when he reached at Trikoni River, he saw the accused persons were
standing in front of him and one of the miscreants stopped him and
thereafter exchange of abusive words took place. Thereafter, he was shot
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 422 of 2003
2026:JHHC:5854-DB
by fire arm and also assaulted by knife, it is very surprising that all the
injuries sustained by informant have been caused to him from behind
including the so called fire arms injury, which clearly suggests that while
the informant was in slow motion driving of his motorcycle at rocky
kaccha road, then some unknown miscreants with intention to rob his
motorcycle might have fired from behind and when the informant fell
down, he was stabbed and motorcycle was looted.
The occurrence is alleged to have happened at 6:00 P.M. in the
month of December, when it becomes dark and the claim of informant
that he saw accused persons standing front side could not be believed.
Similarly, identification of the accused persons in the light of motorcycle
is also beyond imagination in the circumstances and manner of occurrence
as stated by the informant.
There is no whisper in the entire evidence including the deposition
of investigation officer as to whether any motorcycle was purchased by
the informant and whether it was recovered during investigation or not,
that also causes doubt on the prosecution story. Admittedly, there is no
seizure list of the motorcycle.
The informant Umakant Sah, (PW-9), in his cross-examination has
also categorically admitted at para-10 of his deposition that place of
occurrence was river side and road was also full of pebbles when he was
riding up side in the river, then he was shot by fire arm, then he fell down
and his motorcycle also got stopped with loud noise/sound and when he
fell down, he was assaulted by knife and his motorcycle was also stolen
by the accused persons.
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 422 of 2003
2026:JHHC:5854-DB
The sole injured-cum-eyewitness (PW-9) has also stated in his cross
examination that he has shown all the 16 injuries to the doctor at St.
Luke‟s Mission Hospital, Hiranpur. Thereafter, he was referred from
Hiranpur hospital to S.S.K.M. PG Hospital, Kolkata, where he has shown
only injuries on stomach and no other parts of the body.
It is further submitted that the entire medical report of the injured
conducted by S.S.K.M. PG Hospital, Kolkata has neither been brought on
record nor has any doctor been examined, which has caused great
prejudice to the appellants in their defence.
It is further submitted that non-examination of main I.O. of this
case, who has submitted charge-sheet, is also prejudiced to the defence.
Lastly, it is submitted that it is out and out a case of false
implication by the informant after considerable thought and concoction
due to professional rivalry with the accused persons, whose medical
practices were better than the informant.
The occurrence is of simple robbery against the informant in which
he has no occasion to identify any of the miscreants and falsely implicated
the appellants in this case.
The learned Trial Court has committed serious error of law in
appreciating the evidence of sole injured-cum-informant and arrived at
wrong conclusion which is liable to be set aside and appellants be
acquitted from the charges levelled against them. Accordingly, this appeal
may be allowed.
Submissions on behalf of State:-
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 422 of 2003
2026:JHHC:5854-DB
8. Per contra; learned A.P.P. for the State defending the impugned
judgment and order of conviction of the appellants has submitted that the
learned Trial Court has very wisely and aptly considered overall aspects
of the case.
The sole informant-cum-injured and his family members, who
immediately arrived at the place of occurrence from a distance of 300
yards and disclosure of the incident by the informant to them cannot be
disbelieved.
The informant as sole eye witness and sufferer of the crime has
consistently proved his case which finds corroboration from medical
injury report and treatment report of the informant.
Mere none recovery of motorcycle or any other incriminating article
cannot be treated fatal to the prosecution. There is no reason to disbelieve
the prosecution story. The learned Trial Court has committed no error of
law in convicting the appellants for the offences charged against them.
Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned
judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants calling for any
interference in this appeal, which is devoid of merits and fit to be
dismissed.
9. We have gone through the records of case along with impugned
judgment in the light of contentions raised on behalf of respective parties.
10. On the basis of rival points or arguments of the learned counsels, the
only question for determination in this appeal emerges that "as to whether
the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 422 of 2003
2026:JHHC:5854-DB
appellants suffers from any serious error of law calling for any
interference in this appeal or not?"
Analysis, discussions and reasons: -
11. Before adverting to adjudicating the above point, we have to take brief
resume of the evidence of the witnesses available on record.
12. It appears that altogether 10 witnesses were examined in this case by
the prosecution:-
P.W.-1 Balai Marandi
P.W.-2 Rajendra Prasad Sah
P.W.-3 Dr. Barnawas Murmu
P.W.-4 Budhram Besra
P.W.-5 Charan Marandi
P.W.-6 Yogendra Thakur
P.W.-7 Kavita Devi
P.W.-8 Mithilesh Kr. Sah
P.W.-9 Umakant Sah (Informant)
P.W.-10 Madhu Kachhap
13. Apart from the oral testimony of above witnesses, following
documentary evidence has been adduced by the prosecution:-
i) Exhibit-1: Signature of PW-2 Rajendra Prasad Sah on the
Fardbeyan
ii) Exhibit-2: Injury Report (by PW-3).
iii) Exhibit-3: Formal F.I.R.
iv) Exhibit-4: Seizure List.
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 422 of 2003
2026:JHHC:5854-DB
v) Exhibit-X: Carbon copy of Bed Head Ticket issued by S.S.K.M.
PG Hospital, Kolkata.
14. The most important witness informant-cum-sole eyewitness and
injured in this case namely Umakant Sah (PW-9) was examined on
02.12.2002. According to his evidence, on 15th December, 2000 at about
6:00 P.M., he proceeded from Manjhladih Hat to his own house on black
colour Rajdoot motorcycle and reached near Trikoni river. He saw in the
light of his motorcycle that across the river at the corner of upside road
Harihar Thakur and Arjun Thakur were standing alongwith one unknown
person. When this witness reached near to them, then all the three persons
stopped his motorcycle. Harihar Thakur started abusing and Arjun Thakur
was ordered to shot fire upon him. This witness attempted to flee away, in
the meantime, Arjun Thakur fired upon him which hit him on the back
side and bullet got exited from his stomach and he fell down. His intestine
was protruded, the motorcycle fell down towards right side and this
witness fell down towards left side. Thereafter all the three accused
persons started assaulting him by knife at about 16 places of the body. He
sustained knife injuries on arms, chest, back, pinna, head, left hand and
right armpit and corner of left eye. This witness started raising alarm
calling his son Mitthu @ Mithilesh Kr. Sah, then his son Mithilesh Kr.
Sah @ Mithu alongwith wife of this witness came to the place of
occurrence. The accused persons fled away with the motorcycle of this
witness. He has further stated that in the way of arrival of his son Harihar
Thakur told that "पापा पापा कहते रहना, तु म्हारा पापा इस दु ननया से चला गया
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 422 of 2003
2026:JHHC:5854-DB
है ।" He has further stated that in the meantime, his brother Rajendra
Prasad Sah (PW-2) also arrived alongwith 2 to 4 other persons, then he
narrated the incident to them. Rajendra Prasad Sah (PW-2) tightened a
Gamchha in the stomach of this witness and also managed a vehicle and
he was brought to Hiranpur Mission Hospital, where his treatment was
started but due to severe injuries, the doctors advised to take him to higher
centre for better treatment. His fardbeyan was recorded by Officer In-
charge, upon which he put his left thumb impression due to engagement
of right hand for giving drip. Thereafter, his brother Rajendra Prasad Sah
(PW-2) taking the document of reference managed a vehicle and brought
him to Kolkata, where he was admitted in S.S.K.M. PG hospital, Kolkata,
where he has undergone treatment for about one month. He has also filed
carbon copy of bed head ticket issued by S.S.K.M. PG hospital, Kolkata.
This witness has identified the accused Harihar Thakur and Arjun Thakur
in dock.
In his cross-examination, he admits that after recording of his
fardbeyan, he went to Kolkata for treatment and returned after one month.
Thereafter his statement was not recorded by police. He could not say that
his fardbeyan contains signature of conducting doctor of Hiranpur
Mission hospital. He further admits that for the first time he has stated that
he raised alarm, then his son Mithilesh Kr. Sah @ Mithu came at the time
of occurrence and he has also not stated before police that "पापा पापा कहते
रहना, तु म्हारा पापा इस दु ननया से चला गया है ।" He further admits that the
accused persons fled away towards the side from which he was coming
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 422 of 2003
2026:JHHC:5854-DB
and his son and wife arrived to the place of occurrence from opposite
direction. He also admits that Harihar Thakur and Arjun Thakur were
already acquainted with him. He further admits that he is not a doctor by
profession but sells medicine. Harihar Thakur is by profession a doctor
but he has no enmity with him. He further admits that his motorcycle was
stopped by accused persons by putting hand, when it was at the speed of
10 km/h, motorcycle fell down just after receiving bullet injury. At that
time, he had crossed the river. He also admits that in the river, there is
road full of stones and no pitch road has been constructed. He received
firearm injury while proceeding towards upward on the road where he fell
down and his motorcycle switched off making loud noise. He received
knife injuries after falling down from motorcycle. He further admits that
he has shown all 16 injuries sustained by him to the doctor at Hiranpur
Mission hospital.
He has denied the suggestions of defence that except injury on
stomach, he got no other injuries. He has falsely implicated the accused
persons only on account of jealousy, who are by profession doctor and
having very good practice. He has also denied that this witness has not
identified any of the accused persons who have robbed his motorcycle and
due to previous enmity and jealousy; he has falsely implicated the accused
persons.
PW-1 Balai Marandi- When this witness reached at the place of
occurrence, other witnesses namely Mithilesh Kumar Sah, Rajendra
Prasad Sah and wife of Umakant Sah, Joginder Thakur and other several
persons also arrived. Umakant Sah was brought to Littipara for his
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 422 of 2003
2026:JHHC:5854-DB
treatment at Hiranpur Government Mission Hospital. He further states that
Umakant Sah was practicing as doctor and Harihar Thakur was also in the
profession of doctor but there were rivalry between them due to higher
income of the informant.
In his cross-examination, he admits that Arjun Thakur is also his
friend and acquainted to him prior to occurrence. He also admits that in
the way from Manjhiladih Hat to Trikoni River, several motorcycles used
to pass. When he reached at Trikoni River, the headlight of motorcycle
was lighting upon which Arjun Thakur and his two associates were riding
but when they reached near him, headlight was switched off and
motorcycle passed beside this witness at a marginal speed. Umakant Sah
was lying on earth under pool of blood at a distance of 10 hands from the
river. He has also reaffirmed in the Court question that after crossing the
river at a distance of 10 hands, Umakant Sah was lying, who was not
unconscious at that time. The informant Umakant Sah was brought to
Littipara by motorcycle and from there he was brought to Hiranpur
Mission Hospital which is situated at a distance of 13 km from Littipara.
He also states that nearly Littipara Chowk police station is situated and
from Hiranpur Chowk within radius of 50 yards, Hiranpur police station is
also situated. He further admits in clear terms that his statement was not
recorded by police at any point of time during the investigation and he is
giving his evidence before the Court for the first time after the
occurrence.
This witness has denied the suggestion of defense that he has given
false evidence as regards place of occurrence and seeing the accused
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 422 of 2003
2026:JHHC:5854-DB
persons fleeing by a motorcycle. He also admits that he is friend of
Rajendra Prasad Sah who is brother of Umakant Sah. Hence, he has given
evidence as tutored by Rajendra Prasad Sah.
PW-2 Rajendra Prasad Sah is the brother of informant. According to his
evidence on the date of occurrence about 6:00 p.m. while he was sitting in
front of his house, he heard sound of firing and alarm raised by his brother
Umakant Sah. He rushed towards Trikoni river and saw his brother was
lying under pool of blood sustaining injuries on his pinna (near ear), back,
chest and hand, intestine was also protruded from the stomach. He tied the
stomach of the injured by his gamchha. He has further deposed that his
brother Umakant Sah told that he was returning from Manjhiladih hat on
his motorcycle and arrived at Trikoni river then saw three persons and
identified Arjun Thakur, Harihar Thakur and one person was not known to
him. Harihar Thakur stopped his motorcycle and ordered Arjun Thakur to
shoot him. Then Arjun Thakur shot fire from the back side and the bullet
exited from the stomach. Thereafter, he was assaulted by knife. He also
saw the accused while fleeing with the motorcycle of his brother. He has
further deposed that he brought his brother at Luke's Hospital, Hiranpur
by motorcycle and on advice of doctor, he went to Hiranpur Police
Station. The police officer arrived to hospital and recorded statement of
his brother. Thereafter his brother was referred to higher center for better
treatment and he went along with injured brother to S.S.K.M. PG
Hospital, Kolkata. He has also proved his signature over the fardbeyan of
the informant marked at exhibit-1.
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 422 of 2003
2026:JHHC:5854-DB
In his cross-examination, this witness admits that on the advice of
doctor, he went to Hiranpur Police Station and met with officer-in-charge.
He disclosed the entire occurrence before the officer-in-charge and his
statement was recorded and his signature was obtained at the police
station. Thereafter police officer along with him came to hospital. This
witness further admits that in the Hiranpur Hospital his brother was
treated by Dr. Barnawas Murmu about two hours. Thereafter he was
referred for higher center. He also admits that no police officer
accompanied while and the injured was brought to Kolkata. He further
admits that from the place of occurrence, his house is situated at the
distance of ½ kilometer and prior to his arrival at the place of occurrence,
his nephew Mithilesh Kumar Sah @ Mithu, Sister-in-law Kavita Devi and
other neighbors were present. He fairly admits that in his statement before
police he has not stated that he has seen the accused persons while fleeing
by motorcycle. He also admits the professional rivalry between his brother
Umakant Sah and Harihar Thakur. He has denied the suggestion of
defense that his brother was not in condition to speak at the time of
occurrence and due to previous enmity between his brother and accused
persons, he has concocted a false story to ruin the medical practice of the
accused persons.
PW-3 Dr. Barnawas Murmu, Medical officer of St. Luke's Mission
Hospital, Hiranpur has examined the injured Umakant Sah on 15.12.2000
at 8:00 p.m. and found following injuries on his person:
i) On back 1" to 1.1/2" long on upper part of the back.
ii) Two holes on lower part of back about 1" long.
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 422 of 2003
2026:JHHC:5854-DB
iii) Front of abdomen- there was part of loop of intestine protruding
out from abdominal wound.
iv) On head- cut injury behind the right ear about 3" to 4" long, ¼"
wide and deep down to the bone.
1. Nature of weapon for injury no. i) and ii)- A sharp weapon for
injury no. i) and a pointed weapon for injury no. ii).
Sharp weapon for injury no. iii) and iv).
Nature of injures-grievous.
He has further opined that the sharp weapon may be dagger
which might have caused sharp injuries. He has proved the injury
report as Exhibit-2.
This witness also opines that two holes might have caused by the
penetration of bullets through entry and exit holes of injury no. ii) and iii).
PW-4 Budhram Besra has reached at the place of occurrence hearing
halla. He saw Umakant Sah was lying on earth in injured condition and
disclosed that Arjun Thakur had shot fire on him and Harihar Thakur has
assaulted by knife and one unknown person was also with them. He saw
injuries on the body of Umakant Sah on left hand, chest, head, and
stomach. Blood stained soil was seized by police in his presence and
another witness Charan Marandi and he put his thumb impression over
seizure list.
In his cross examination, he admits that prior to him, injured
Umakant Sah has narrated the incident to several persons who have
arrived before him.
PW-5 Charan Marandi is witness of seizure list of blood stained soil.
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 422 of 2003
2026:JHHC:5854-DB
PW-6 Yogendra Thakur has also claimed to have gone at the place of
occurrence hearing the sound of firing. The informant Umakant Sah
disclosed that Arjun Thakur and Harihar Thakur have assaulted by pistol
and knife. He does not know about the reason of the occurrence.
PW-7 Kavita Devi is the wife of informant. She has also claimed that at
about 6:00 p.m. she heard the sound of firing and alarm raised by her
husband, then she, along with her son Mithilesh Kumar Sah @ Mitthu,
rushed to the Trikoni river and saw her husband was lying under pool of
blood sustaining injuries on his back, chest, and stomach. Her brother-in-
law, Rajendra Prasad Sah, arrived there and tied the stomach of her
husband by gamchha. Her husband also disclosed that Harihar Thakur had
shot fire upon him, thereafter Arjun Thakur and Harihar Thakur both of
them assaulted by knife and also taken away his Rajdoot motorcycle. Her
husband was brought to Hiranpur Mission Hospital by her son Mithilesh
Kumar Sah @ Mitthu and brother-in-law Rajendra Prasad Sah.
In her cross examination, she admits that her house from the place of
occurrence is situated at a distance of 200 to 300 hands. She also saw the
accused persons fleeing away with the motorcycle of her husband and
saying to her son that "तु म्हारा पापा इस दु ननया से चला गया है ।". She further
states that when accused persons fled away by motorcycle, then she
reached near her husband who was seriously injured but conscious.
PW-8 Mithilesh Kumar Sah also reached along with his mother hearing
screams of his father and sound of firing. His father was lying injured near
the river sustaining injuries on his back, chest, stomach, and pinna (near
ear), intestine was also protruded. His uncle Rajendra Prasad Sah also
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 422 of 2003
2026:JHHC:5854-DB
immediately arrived at the place of occurrence and tied his gamchha on
the stomach injury of his father. Thereafter his father was brought to
Hiranpur Mission Hospital. His father told that Harihar Thakur and Arjun
Thakur have assaulted by knife and Arjun Thakur shot fire to him. His
father was injured but not unconscious.
In his cross examination, he admits that his uncle Rajendra Prasad
Sah informed about the occurrence at Hiranpur Police Station. He further
admits that village Trikoni is under jurisdiction of Littipara Police Station
and they have gone to Hiranpur Mission Hospital passing through
Littipara, but no information was given to Littipara Police Station. He has
denied the suggestion of defense that his father was not conscious and he
was not able to disclose the name of any accused persons and he has given
false information against the accused persons.
PW-10 Madhu Kachhap is the investigating officer of this case.
According to his evidence on 15/12/2000, he received confidential
information and recorded station diary entry and proceeded to Hiranpur
Mission hospital. When he reached at Hiranpur Mission Hospital, the
fardbeyan of Umakant Sah (injured) was already recorded by officer-in-
charge of Hiranpur Police Station and requisition for injury report was
also issued. He recorded the restatement of injured/informant and also
other witnesses namely Rajendra Prasad Sah and Mithilesh Kumar Sah
and Balai Marandi. Thereafter he returned to Littipara Police Station and
formal F.I.R. was registered which is marked as exhibit-3. He has
inspected the place of occurrence on identification by wife of the injured
Kavita Devi. The place of occurrence is situated at Kacha Road from
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 422 of 2003
2026:JHHC:5854-DB
Gamharia to Trikoni near Trikoni river about 25 feet east which is a
lonely place. He prepared seizure list of blood stained soil from the place
of occurrence in presence of witnesses Charan Marandi and Budhram
Desra, marked as exhibit-4. Thereafter, he was transferred and further
charge of investigation was handed over to S.I. Ajay Kumar Tiwari. He
has denied the suggestion of defense that without registration of F.I.R., he
started investigation of the case by recording statement of Rajendra Prasad
Sah, Mithilesh Kumar Sah and Balai Marandi. He has not seized the
gamchha which was tied in the stomach of injured by his brother. He has
also denied any re-statement of the informant recorded by him on the
same date and his investigation is defective.
15. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced
by the defense. The case of defense is denial from occurrence and false
implication due to professional rivalry.
16. We have given thoughtful consideration to the oral and documentary
evidence adduced in this case and find that the sole injured-cum-informant
was attacked on the fateful date of occurrence at about 6 p.m. He had
sustained injuries dangerous to life. Therefore, it was prime obligation of
the near and dear ones to get a proper treatment. Therefore, without
wasting any time, the injured was brought to St. Luke's Mission Hospital,
Hiranpur and at about 21:00 hours on the same day, being a medico legal
case, the nearest police station, Hiranpur was informed and the officer-in-
charge S.I. Ved Prakash Mehta arrived at the St. Luke‟s Mission Hospital
and recorded farbeyan of the injured Umakant Sah. In his farbeyan, the
sole injured-cum-informant has categorically stated the events and
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 422 of 2003
2026:JHHC:5854-DB
specific role played by the present appellants in assaulting him by knife
and using fire arm also. The informant was examined during trial as PW-9
wherein also he has consistently corroborated his earlier statement made
before the police.
The evidence of informant-cum-sole injured has been tested through
lengthy cross-examination, but nothing has been appeared to caste any
doubt in his testimony or showing any animus to falsely implicate the
appellants sparing the real culprits. Although some contradictions
appearing in his evidence has been pointed out by learned counsel for the
appellants regarding professional rivalry as initially stated to be motive for
the occurrence has been denied by the informant when suggested by
defence. The non-recovery of motorcycle and production of seized
materials during trial and other contradictions like number of injuries
sustained by the informant doesn‟t appear to be vital contradictions going
to the root of prosecution case.
17. We further find that the testimony of sole injured finds corroboration
from the evidence of PW-3 Dr. Barnawas Murmu, Medical Officer of St.
Luke's Mission Hospital Hiranpur, who examined the injured on
15.12.2000 at about 8:00 p.m., has found grievous injuries on the back,
front abdomen, head caused by sharp cut weapon. He also found that part
of loop of intestine protruded out from abdominal wound. The injuries
were opined to be grievous in nature caused by sharp cut weapon, which
also corroborates the testimony of PW-9.
The learned counsel for the appellants has led much emphasis that
the bullet injury was not found by PW-3 Dr. Barnawas Murmu but as
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 422 of 2003
2026:JHHC:5854-DB
against it, the evidence of PW-3 Dr. Barnawas Murmu goes to show that
in his opinion injury no. ii) two holes on lower part of back and injury no.
iii) protruding out intestine front abdominal wound might have been
caused by penetration of bullet through the entry and exit hole of injury
nos. ii) and iii).
In this connection, this is vehemently pointed out by learned
counsel for the appellants that the whole medical treatment report from
S.S.K.M. PG Hospital, Kolkata has not been produced by prosecution and
only carbon copy of bed head ticket was produced by the informant PW-9
which was marked as Exhibit- „X‟ for identification, but no original
document was produced in this case, which also cast doubt on the
prosecution case. Such type of technical defects cannot be entertained to
destroy the testimony of injured-cum-eye-witness who is sufferer of the
crime and has undergone agony of medical treatment for a long time. It
cannot be considered to brand him as tainted witness. Therefore, the
lacuna in non-production of complete medical treatment documents is not
sufficient to displace the prosecution case.
The other witnesses of facts are admittedly hearsay witnesses, but
they have also approached at the place of occurrence immediately and the
injured narrated the incident to them in clear terms. Some of the witnesses
immediately brought the injured to hospital for treatment. Therefore, their
testimony is relevant under Section 6 of the Evidence Act being part of
the transaction called as 'res gestae'.
The probative value of injured witness stands on higher pedestal
than other eye witnesses. If such witness found reliable and his testimony
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 422 of 2003
2026:JHHC:5854-DB
doesn‟t suffer from any embellishment, material contradictions, or
inherently improbable in the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be
acted upon as sole basis for conviction.
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Catena of judgments has laid down
that evidence of an injured witness needs to be accepted unless there is
convincing evidence to discredit it.
In the case of Abdul Sayeed vs. State of M.P., reported in (2010)
10 SCC 259, it was held that "the question of the weight to be attached to
the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the
occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness
to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony
of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a
witness that comes with built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of
the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely
implicate someone. "Convincing evidence is required to discredit an
injured witness."
In the case of State of U.P. vs. Kishan Chand & Ors. as reported
in (2004) 7 SCC 629, it was held that "the testimony of an injured witness
has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness sustained
injuries at the time and place of occurrence lends support to their
testimony that the witnesses were present during the occurrence. The
injured witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination, but
nothing could be elicited to discredit their testimony.
In the case of State of U.P. vs. Naresh, as reported in (2011) 4
SCC 324, it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court that "the evidence of an
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 422 of 2003
2026:JHHC:5854-DB
injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness.
Thus, his presence can‟t be doubted. His statement is generally considered
to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant
in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured
witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at
the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony
that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an
injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not
like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a
third person falsely for the commission of offense."
19. In the case in hand, we have considered the testimony of witnesses in
threadbare manner in light of certain contradictions, infirmities,
exaggerations in the evidence of other eye witnesses coupled with
irregularities and casual manner of investigation, but don't find any
compelling reasons to disbelieve the prosecution case, particularly the
testimony of sole eye-witness-cum-injured to discard the same. Moreover,
the testimony of the sole injured witness herein substantially finds
corroboration from the evidence of medical injury report promptly
conducted by PW-3 Dr. Barnawas Murmu.
20. In view of the above discussions and reason, we don't find any error of
law in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the
appellants for the offenses charged against them. There is no reason to
interfere with the impugned judgment and order and no merits in this
appeal. Therefore, this appeal stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any,
stands disposed of.
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 422 of 2003
2026:JHHC:5854-DB
21. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are hereby cancelled and
they are directed to appear before the concerned trial court within two
months from the date of this judgment to sustain the remaining part of
sentence awarded to them. The imprisonment already undergone by the
appellants shall be set off from the substantive period of sentence.
22. If the appellants fail to appear before the concerned trial court within
the aforesaid period, all coercive steps shall be taken by the learned trial
court for their arrest and detention in custody to serve the remaining part
of sentence awarded to them.
23. Let the copy of this judgment along with trial court records be sent
back to the concerned trial court for information and needful.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)
(PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
Date 27/02/2026
Rahul/ N. A. F. R.
Uploaded on 27/02/2026
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 422 of 2003
