Manmohan Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand

Rajesh Kumar, J

It appears that vide order dated 20.08.2025, the present Criminal Appeal stands abated, so far as the appellant no.1, namely, Bishnu Prasad is concerned.

Now the appeal survives only with respect to the appellant Nos.2 & 3 namely Manmohan Kumar and Saroj Yadav.

Heard Ms. Kumari Pragati Ram Narayan, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant and Mr. Jitendra Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the State.

The present criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction dated 20.07.2005 and order of sentence dated 21.07.2005 passed by the learned Additional District & Session’s Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.2nd, Bokaro in Session’s Trial No.358 of 2003 whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 307/341/34 of the Indian Penal Code (In short ‘IPC’) and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 307/34 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.500 each and in default of payment of fine they further undergo to simple imprisonment for one month. No further sentence is passed under Section 341 IPC.

It appears that the criminal case has been put into motion by lodging an FIR being Harla P.S. Case No.40 of 2002 dated 08.04.2002 under Sections 341/324/325/326/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution based on the fardbeyan of the informant namely, Surendra Nath Choudhary @ Nakul Choudhary.

The brief facts of the case is that on 08.04.2002 at about 12.30 P.M., Mohan and his father, resident of quarter No.1409, Sector-IX/B came to his quarter and said to him that they did not feed him, so he should come to their quarter as lunch is prepared. On their insistence, he went with Mohan to his quarter and ate food there. They also made him drink alcohol. Saroj Yadav and one more boy whose name is not known to him but by face and he was resident of Chas, were present at Mohan's quarter. After eating and drinking, Mohan who had a sword in his hand, Mohan's father who had a rod in his hand, Saroj who also had a sword in his hand and the unknown boy of Chas had a country made pistol in his hand. All of them started beating together him with the sword, rod and with the butt of the pistol with the intention of killing him, causing three injuries on his head as well as on his both legs and on back causing bleeding injuries. The neighbourers took him to his house and from there with his family members, he came to Bokaro General Hospital for his treatment.

The police after completing investigation had submitted charge-sheet under Sections 324/323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code but the charge has been framed under Sections 341, 324, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against four persons who are Bishnu Prasad, Shankar Dayal, Man Mohan Kumar & Saroj Kumar Yadav.

To substantiate the prosecution story, altogether eight witnesses have been examined in this case which are P.W.-1 Ashok Baral, P.W.2 Nanku Ram, P.W.-3 Laxchhmi Narayan Chaudhary, P.W.-4 Surendra Pratap Chaudhary @ Naku Chaudhary, P.W.-5 Dhananjay Kumar, P.W.-6 Bijay Kumar, P.W.-7 Madho Singh who is the Investigating Officer of the case, P.W.-8, the doctor namely Rabindra Kumar.

Out of eight witnesses P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-4 have been declared hostile. Only five witnesses are relevant that are P.W.-3, P.W.-5, P.W.-6, P.W.-7 & P.W.-8 which are as follows:-

P.W.-3 is Laxchhmi Narayan Chaudhary who is the father of the informant. He is not an eye witness while he is a hearsay witness. He stated that his son namely Surendra Pratap Chaudhary @ Naku Chaudhary (informant) has three/four criminal cases pending against him and in another three cases he has been acquitted.

P.W.-5 is Dhananjay Kumar who is a student and has stated that he was coming from school. He is a student. He further stated that informant demanded money from him and on refusal he assaulted him with fist and slaps.

During cross-examination he stated that he does not know the informant from before and the informant assaulted him for money.

P.W.-6 is Vijay Kumar who has claimed himself to be an eye witness and has given statement before the Investigating Officer in detail regarding the manner of occurrence.

P.W.-7 is Madho Singh who is the Investigating Officer in this case and has stated that he did not find any sign of assault at the alleged place.

P.W.-8 is Rabindra Kumar who is Senior Medical Officer at Bokaro General Hospital, Causality Ward and on that day he was examined the informant, Surendra Pratap Chaudhary @ Naku Chaudhary who was brought by Harendra Prasad Choudhary and his mother. In examination-in-chief this Doctor stated that all injuries are simple in nature and caused by sharp cutting weapon.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that:

(i) There is no evidence to connect these appellants with the crime as the Investigating Officer, P.W.-7, has negated the place of occurrence and further it has been submitted that there is case and counter case.

(ii) The informant/star witness/injured witness has been declared hostile. Thus, there is no evidence against these appellants and the conviction under Sections 307/341/34 IPC is without any cogent evidence.

(iii) The mother and younger brother of the informant have not been examined although they have been important witness who are alleged to have taken the informant from the spot to the hospital.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence but could not point out any materials with regard to Section 307/34 IPC.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it appears that:

(i) the FIR is under Section 341/324/325/326/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the police, after investigation, has submitted charge-sheet under Sections 341, 324 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code but the charge has been framed under Sections 341, 324, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and ultimately the appellants have been convicted under Sections 341, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(ii) The injured/informant witness have not supported the case of prosecution and has been declared hostile which is the only eye witness of the crime.

(iii) The Investigating Officer has negated the place of occurrence as he has not found any sign of scuffle there.

In view of above observation, the judgment of conviction dated 20.07.2005 and order of sentence dated 21.07.2005 passed by the learned Additional District & Session’s Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.2nd, Bokaro in Session’s Trial No.358 of 2003, is hereby quashed and set aside.

Accordingly, the present appeal stands allowed and disposed of. The appellants are discharged from liability of the bail bond.

Assistance of Ms. Kumari Pragati Ram Narayan, Amicus Curiae, is hereby appreciated.

Let the trial court records be sent back to the concerned court.