[ad_1]
Jharkhand High Court
Akhilesh Singh Son Of Shri Chandragupt … vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 April, 2025
2025:JHHC:11289
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 881 of 2006
......
[Against the Judgment of conviction dated 28.04.2006 and Order of
sentence dated 01.05.2006, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
(FTC-III) at Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No.346 of 2004, 424 of 2004
and 127 of 2005]
......
Akhilesh Singh Son of Shri Chandragupt Singh, resident of Sidhgora,
P.S. Sidhgora (Jamshedpur), Dist. East Singhbhum.
... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
... Respondent
......
For the Appellant : Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Adv.
For the State : Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Spl. P.P.
......
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
......
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on 15.01.2025 Pronounced on 11.04.2025
1. I have already heard the arguments advanced by
Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant as
well as Mr. V.K. Vashistha, learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the
State.
2. This instant criminal appeal is directed against the
judgment of conviction dated 28.04.2006 and order of
sentence dated 01.05.2006 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge (FTC-III) at Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial
No.346 of 2004, 424 of 2004 and 127 of 2005 arising out of
Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006 Page | 1
2025:JHHC:11289
Sidgora P.S. Case No.68 of 2002, whereby and whereunder,
the sole appellant along with co-accused Santosh Kumar
Gupta @ Santosh Gupta has been held guilty for the offences
under Sections 353/307 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for seven years with fine of Rs.10,000/- each and
in default of payment of fine further directed to undergo R.I.
for six months for the offence punishable under Section
307/34 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for one year for the offence
punishable under Section 353/34 of the I.P.C. and further R.I.
for three years for the offence punishable under Section 27 of
the Arms Act.
3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on
20.06.2002 at about 08:45 a.m., the informant Arvind Kumar
Singh (P.W.7), the then Officer-In-Charge of Dumaria Police
Station received confidential information that the present
appellant who was absconding in a case of Kabra kidnapping
and murder of a Jailor of Sakchi Jail, assembled on Road
No.20 with his associates. The informant along with other
police personnel went towards the said place for
apprehending the appellant and his associates. In the
meantime, instead of managing retreat after arrival of police
Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006 Page | 2
2025:JHHC:11289
personnel, the appellant fired twice aiming the police
personnel who were sitting inside the Maruti Car. It is further
alleged that the informant was on driving seat of the car and
the gun shot hit on the front glass (wind screen) causing
gunshot injuries to him below right eye. It is further alleged
that two holes were caused in the frontal wind screen of the
Maruti Car due to said gunshot. Other associates of the
appellant had also opened two round fire aiming the
informant and his companion police officers. It is further
alleged that the informant and S.I. Om Prakash in their
defence had also opened fire from their service pistol then
Akhilesh Singh, Santosh Gupta and other unknown
miscreants started fleeing towards west and were chased by
the informant and S.I. Om Prakash but the accused persons
succeeded in fleeing away opening four rounds of fire with
the revolver towards the police personnel. It is further alleged
that in the course of their fleeing, miscreants have robbed a
Kawasaki Bajaj motorcycle on the point of pistol of a passerby
near Bara Flat and fled away. Thereafter, the informant and
S.I. Om Prakash (P.W.11) returned near Maruti Car and
found a Yamaha motorcycle No. BR 16C 2547 lying at the
place of occurrence left by the miscreants.
Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006 Page | 3
2025:JHHC:11289
The informant informed the above occurrence through
telephonic message to police control room and S.I. Arvind
Kumar was brought to T.M.H. for treatment. Accordingly,
Sidgora P.S. Case No.68 of 2002 dated 20.06.2002 was
registered for the offences under Sections 307/326/353/34 of
the I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act. The charge of investigation
was undertaken by S.I. Vivekanand Oraon, the then Officer-
In-Incharge of Sidgora Police Station.
4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was
submitted. First charge-sheet was submitted against Akhilesh
Singh (appellant) and Santosh Gupta continuing the
investigation against unknown and thereafter,
supplementary charge-sheet was submitted against one
Santosh Pandey for the aforesaid offences.
5. After Commitment of the case, charges were framed
against the accused appellant and two other accused persons
under Section 27 of the Arms Act and 307/34 and 353/34 of
the I.P.C. which were read over and explained to them, to
which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. In the course of trial, altogether 11 witnesses were
examined by prosecution. Apart from oral testimony of
witnesses, following documentary evidence were adduced:
Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006 Page | 4
2025:JHHC:11289
Exhibit 1 : Written report
Exhibit 1/1 : Endorsement on the F.I.R.
Exhibit 2 : Formal F.I.R.
Exhibit 3 : Signature of S.I. Arvind Kumar
on production-cum-seizure list.
Exhibit 4 : Signature of S.I. Arvind Kumar
Singh on written report.
Exhibit 5 : Signature of V.N. Oraon on
production-cum-seizure list.
Exhibit 6 : Signature of M.V.I. on M.V.I.
report.
Exhibit 7 : Injury report
Exhibit 8 : Production-cum-seizure list
Exhibit 8/1 : Seizure list
Exhibit 8/2 : Seizure list
Exhibit 8/3 : Production-cum-seizure list
Exhibit 9 : M.V.I. report
Exhibit 10 : Signature of S.I. Om Prakash on
production-cum-seizure list.
7. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence
were adduced on behalf of accused Santosh Kumar
Gupta and Santosh Pandey. The case of defence is denial
Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006 Page | 5
2025:JHHC:11289from occurrence to false implication. Although, five defence
witnesses have been examined on behalf of accused Akhilesh
Singh (present appellant).
Apart from oral evidence of defence witness, a map
of Jamshedpur town has also been filed by the accused
appellant Akhilesh Singh marked as Ext.A.
8. The learned Trial Court, after scrutinizing the oral as
well as documentary evidence led by respective parties
concluded about the guilt of the accused persons including
the present appellant and impugned judgment and order was
passed which has been assailed in this appeal.
9. Learned counsel for above named sole appellant has
vehemently argued that the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence of the appellant is absolutely
beyond the weight of evidence adduced during trial and
suffers from perversity. The learned Trial Court has
miserably failed to appreciate that the prosecution has failed
to prove the place and manner of occurrence through their
own witnesses. The learned Trial Court has picked out the
circumstances favouring the prosecution and negated the
circumstances favouring the appellant without any cogent
reasons ignoring the principle of preponderance of
Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006 Page | 6
2025:JHHC:11289
probability instead of proof beyond reasonable doubt as
applicable to criminal trials. The prosecution witnesses have
reiterated absolutely a different story regarding place of
occurrence, identity of miscreants, manner of damage to
official Maruti Car and the injury sustained by P.W.5. All the
material witnesses namely S.I. Arvind Kumar (P.W.5), S.I.
Arvind Kumar Singh (P.W.7), S.I. Om Prakash (P.W.11) and
S.I. Vivekanand Oraon (P.W.10) who have investigated the
case, have narrated about the occurrence in their own way
materially contradicting each other cutting the very root of
the prosecution case. Surprisingly, the learned Trial Court has
believed such contradictory evidence basis for conviction of
the appellant. It is further submitted that P.W.1 whose
motorcycle was alleged to have been snatched by the accused
persons has miserably failed to identify any of miscreants
during trial and surprisingly, he has not been declared hostile
by the prosecution on the point of identification. According to
P.W.5, the place of occurrence was Cross Road No.20 whereas
P.W.7, the informant, as well as P.W.10, the I.O. have clearly
stated that place of occurrence was not Cross Road No.20 but
Road No.20. On the other hand, P.W.11, another Police
Officer, has stated that the place of occurrence was Cross
Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006 Page | 7
2025:JHHC:11289
Road No.20. It is also surprising that the report of M.V.I.
(Ext.9) which speaks about an accident case having only the
one hole in the wind screen which belies the prosecution
story. Similarly, the injury report of the P.W.5 (Arvind
Kumar) as proved by P.W.9, Medical Officer of Tata Main
Hospital, Jamshedpur, was simple in nature below the right
eye which has not been opined to have caused by firearm. No
independent witnesses were examined to corroborate the
prosecution story. Although, availability of such witnesses in
the vicinity, the investigation was also conducted in
perfunctory manner and no wearing clothes allegedly blood
stained were seized in this case. No sketch map of the place
of occurrence was prepared. The Investigating Officer has
never visited the place of occurrence and has given false
description. The damaged Maruti Car was not seized from
the place of occurrence but the same was seized from Road
No.23. The Road No.20 and Cross Road No.20 are different
places and situated at a distance of 1 k.m. The learned Trial
Court has miserably failed to properly appreciate the
prosecution evidence as well as attach no credence to the
defence evidence without any cogent reasons. Therefore, the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of
Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006 Page | 8
2025:JHHC:11289
the appellant is absolutely unwarranted and under law and
appellant deserved to be acquitted from the charges leveled
against him and this appeal may be allowed.
10. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor
appearing for the State defending the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence of the appellants has
contended that the learned trial court has very wisely and
aptly analyzed, scanned and appreciated the prosecution
evidence and arrived at right conclusion about guilt of the
appellant. The prosecution has proved the charges levelled
against the appellant beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt.
There is no substance in the points of argument raised on
behalf of the appellant, therefore, there is no reason to
interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence of the appellant and there is no merit in this
appeal which is fit to be dismissed.
11. For better appreciation on the respective points of
arguments raised by learned counsels will assume of
evidence adduced by parties appears to be opposite.
P.W.1 Alok Prasad has deposed that on the date of
occurrence at about 9/10 A.M., he was passing through Bara
Talla Flat on his motorcycle, meanwhile, a person pointed
Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006 Page | 9
2025:JHHC:11289
revolver towards him and order to leave his motorcycle,
hence, due to fear, this witness left his motorcycle and fled
away in order to save his life. He has failed to identify the
miscreant.
P.W.2 S.I. Mahanayak Tieu is partial Investigating
Officer of this case who took charge of investigation on
04.01.2003 from previous I.O. Kamal Kishor and after
receiving supervision note of the superior, Officer submitted
charge-sheet No.27 of 2003 against the accused persons
Santosh Gupta showing Akhilesh Kmar Singh as absconder
and due to his transfer handed over the further charge of
investigation to then Offiver-In-Charge. He has proved the
signature of S.I. Arvind Kumar Singh and written report as
Ext.1 and endorsement on written report by then Officer-In-
Charge S.I. V.N. Oraon as Ext.1/1 and formal F.I.R. as Ext.2.
P.W.3 S.I. Sunit Kumar is also Investigating Officer
who took charge of further investigation on 16.04.2003 but
due to his suspension, he handed over the charge of
investigation to S.I. Tarkeshwar Ram and he has not
investigated this case.
P.W.4 S.I. Jairam Prasad succeeded the further charge
of investigation of this case and submitted charge-sheet No.93
Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006 Page | 10
2025:JHHC:11289
of 2003 against accused Santosh Pandey only on the basis of
confessional statement of said co-accused.
P.W.5 S.I. Arvind Kumar is the injured witness in this
case. According to his evidence on 20.05.2002 at about 09:15
A.M., he was posted as Officer-In-Charge of Burmamines
Police Station. On that day, at about 08:50 A.M., S.I. Arvind
Kumar Singh, the then Officer-In-Charge of Dumaria Police
Station came at Burmamines P.S. and informed him that an
absconder accused of Kabra Apharan Kand namely Akhilesh
Kumar Singh was seen along with his associates Santosh
Gupta and others behind the Tata Workers Union School at
Cross Road No.20 and was planning for commission of some
serious offence. The said information was also given to
superior Police Officers. Thereafter, this witness along with
S.I. Arvind Kumar Singh proceeded on his Maruti Car No. BR
16N 6061 to Sidgora Police Station and also accompanied
with S.I. Omprakash and approach towards Tata Workers
Union School, where they saw Akhilesh Singh, Santosh
Gupta and other unknown miscreant were talking to each
other on a red colour Yamaha motorcycle. This witness along
with above named other Police Officers proceeded further
towards the above named accused persons in order to
Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006 Page | 11
2025:JHHC:11289
apprehend them and stop the Maruti Car then S.I. Arvind
Kumar Singh and S.I. Omprakash got down from the car and
approached towards the miscreants. In the meantime,
Akhilesh Singh challenging them ordered to go back and also
opened firearm twice with his revolver and due to firing by
Akhilesh Singh wind glass of Maruti Car hit on left and right
side and pellets also entered inside and hit this witness just
below his right eye. Thereafter, this witness also opened fire
in order to save his life from his service pistol. He has further
deposed that Santosh Gupta and one unknown had also
opened fire towards S.I. Arvind Kumar Singh and S.I.
Omprakash who in order to save their life had opened fire
against the miscreants by their service revolver. The accused
persons managed to flee away then S.I. Omprakash and S.I.
Arvind Kumar Singh came to him and brought to T.M.H.
hospital for treatment. He has proved the production-cum-
seizure list of his service pistol and pellets used in his
defence.
This witness was put to extensive cross-examination,
wherein he has reiterated that he saw the miscreants just
behind Tata Workers Union School at Cross Road No.20
while he was driving the car. He opened fire in his defence
Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006 Page | 12
2025:JHHC:11289
from a distance of 10 feet from inside the car through right
window. He also reiterates that two holes were caused in the
wind glass of the car by firing of the accused persons. His car
was also seized by the Investigating Officer in damaged
condition. He also admits that in a subsequent case registered
at Sonari Police Station against accused Akhilesh Singh, he
conducted investigation. There is nothing else in his cross-
examination to disbelieve or discard his testimony.
P.W.6 S.I. Manoj Kumar Rai also assumed charge of
investigation of this case on 14.06.2003 but could not conduct
further investigation and was transferred.
P.W.7 S.I. Arvind Kumar Singh is the informant of this
case. According to his evidence on 20.06.2002, on the basis of
secret information that some hard core miscreants were
coming at Road No.20, Sidgora, he informed to superior
Police Officers and reached at Burmamines Police Station
accompanied with S.I. Arvind Kumar, the then Officer-In-
Charge and also S.I. Omprakash from Sidgora Police Station
and move towards Road No.20 and reached there at about
09:50 A.M. then he saw that a motorcycle was standing there
and three persons were standing near the motorcycle. He has
further deposed that the vehicle was being driven by S.I.
Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006 Page | 13
2025:JHHC:11289
Arvind Kumar of Burmamines Police Station which was
stopped near the miscreants then S.I. Omprakash and this
witness got down from the car. Suddenly, Santosh Gupta
opened firearm twice with intention to kill them. It is further
stated that with a view to save themselves, this witness also
opened two rounds fire from his service revolver and S.I.
Omprakash also opened single fire. Thereafter, accused
Akhilesh Kumar Singh opened two rounds fire aiming to S.I.
Arvind Kumar who was sitting on the driving seat of the
vehicle, one of which hit S.I. Arvind Kumar breaking the
front glass of the vehicle which caused injury just below his
right eye. Due to counter firing of police personnel, the
accused persons managed to flee away. He has further
deposed that S.I. Arvind Kumar was brought to T.M.H. for
his treatment. This witness lodged F.I.R. drawing his self-
statement which is marked as Ext.4. The endorsement for
registration of case was made by S.I. V.N. Oraon, the then
Officer-In-Charge which is marked as Ext.5. He has also
identified the accused persons present behind the dock.
In his cross-examination, he reiterates that distance
between the stationary car and the accused persons was in
between 15 to 20 feet. In the front glass of the car, hole was
Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006 Page | 14
2025:JHHC:11289
made due to firing and in that course S.I. Arvind Kumar was
injured but he was conscious. In the cross-examination, on
behalf of accused Akhilesh Singh, he has further reiterated
that due to his firing, two holes occurred at the front wind
glass of the car. There is nothing else in his cross-examination
to discredit his testimony.
P.W.8 Budhinath Chowdhary has proved the signature
of M.V.I. Jitendra Kumar over the M.V.I. report as Ext.6.
P.W.9 Dr. D.K. Bhatta Mishra was posted as Medical
Officer at T.M.H. in emergency ward on 20.06.2002. This
witness has proved that he examined S.I. Arvind Kumar,
aged about 45 years, on that day at about 10:00 A.M. and
found following injury on his person:
(i) Lacerated wound below right eye size 2 cm x 1 cm.
According to him, it was an alleged case of assault by
firearm. The age of injury was fresh within six hours and
simple in nature. Patient was discharged after first aid. He
has proved the injury report as Ext.7.
P.W.10 S.I. Vivekanand Oraon is the Investigating
Officer of this case. According to his evidence on 20.06.2002,
at about 09:30 AM, he received telephonic information that
counter firing is going on between some miscreants and
Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006 Page | 15
2025:JHHC:11289
policy party near Tata Workers Union School, Sidgora. He
made station Diary entry and proceeded for verification and
necessary action towards the place of occurrence along with
A.S.I. Suneshwar Singh, A.S.I. S. Mahatha, A.S.I. R.P. Paswan
and other armed forces. He reached near place of occurrence
at 09:40 am and came to know that firing was going on
between miscreants and police party and miscreants have
fled away towards Bara Flat. He proceeded towards Bara Flat
to arrest miscreants then came to know that in the course of
fleeing away, the miscreants had robbed a Bajaj Kawasaki
motorcycle from a passerby and fled away towards Bagun
Hatu via Bara Flat. He also went towards Bagun Hatu but no
clue of miscreants was found and then he returned to place of
occurrence and found Yamaha motorcycle RX-100
registration No.BR 16C 2547 and Maruti Car bearing No.BR
16N 6061 belonging to S.I. Arvind Kumar, the then Officer-In-
Charge Burmamines Police Station and kept the motorcycle
and Maruti Car in supervision of Police. He received written
report of S.I. Arvind Kumar Singh, the then Officer-In-Charge
of Dumaria Police Station and registered Sidgora P.S. Case
No.68 of 2002 dated 20.06.2002 for the offence under Sections
307, 326, 353/34 of the I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act and
Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006 Page | 16
2025:JHHC:11289
taken up the charge of investigation himself. He also
prepared production-cum-seizure list of service revolver of
S.I. Arvind Kumar Singh and S.I. Omprakash along with used
pellets respectively marked Ext.8. He also visited the place of
occurrence along with S.I. Omprakash and S.I. Arvind Kumar
Singh and on their identification inspected the place of
occurrence which is near Pakki Sarak in front of quarter
No.X-N/27 Road No.20 near Tata Workers Union School,
Sidgora. The said Pakki Sarak runs east-west near place of
occurrence and about 10 ft. wide, thereafter, 10 ft. flank on its
north and south side. There is X-N type quarter of Tisco
Company by side of the place of occurrence and also Tata
Workers Union School. It is further stated that Road No.20
passes near the place of occurrence. In the course of
investigation, he recovered two bullets (.38) from inside the
Maruti Car of S.I. Arvind Kumar which was seized and
seizure list was prepared in the presence of independent
witnesses marked Ext.8/1. He also seized Yamaha motorcycle
RX-100 No.BR 16C 2547 left by miscreants in presence of
independent witnesses marked Ext.8/2. Thereafter, he
recorded the restatement of informant and other witnesses of
occurrence and also proceeded to T.M.H. hospital and
Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006 Page | 17
2025:JHHC:11289
recorded the statement of injured S.I. Arvind Kumar (P.W.5)
and other witnesses namely Alok Prasad (P.W.1). He also got
M.V.I. examination of the Maruti Car and obtained its report
(Ext.9). Due to his transfer, the further investigation was
handed over to the then Officer-In-Charge Sidgora P.S.
namely Kamal Kishor.
In the cross-examination of this witness, certain latches
in the investigation has been pointed out regarding non-
seizure of bloodstained clothes of the injured, bloodstained
seat cover of the Maruti Car, no inquiry about the ownership
of the Yamaha motorcycle RX-100 No.BR 16C 2547. The
seizure memo of Maruti Car shows the place of recovery is at
Road No.23 and of the motorcycle is at Road No.20. There is
nothing else in his cross-examination to discredit his
testimony.
P.W.11 S.I. Omprakash was also Member of Task Force
and he was informed by S.I. Arvind Kumar and S.I. Arvind
Kumar Singh that the known hardened criminals Akhilesh
Singh, the present appellant, Santosh Gupta and one another
were assembled near Tata Workers Union School at Cross
Road No.20. He proceeded with Maruti Car No.BR 16N 6061
and reached near place of occurrence and also consistently
Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006 Page | 18
2025:JHHC:11289
corroborated the evidence of informant that three miscreants
were standing near Yamaha motorcycle out of them, he
identified Akhilesh Singh and Santosh Gupta, who were
engaged in talking. S.I. Arvind Kumar Singh got down from
the car and tried to surround them. Meanwhile, they were
identified by miscreants and threatened of dire consequences
and with intention to kill them, the miscreants opened fire.
First of all, Santosh Gupta opened two rounds fire aiming
towards them with intention to kill them and Akhilesh Singh
opened two rounds fire aiming S.I. Arvind Kumar who was
sitting on driving seat of the Maruti Car which broke out the
front wind glass and caused injury below right eye to S.I.
Arvind Kumar. In order to save their lives, police personnel
including this witness counter fired upon the miscreants who
robbed one Kawasaki motorcycle of a passerby near Bara Flat
and fled away. The injured S.I. Arvind Kumar was brought to
T.M.H. for treatment. He has also claimed to have acquainted
with accused Akhilesh Singh prior to occurrence. No material
has been elicited in his cross-examination to disbelieve his
testimony.
12. On the other hand, defence witnesses examined on
behalf of appellant Akhilesh Singh is discussed hereunder:
Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006 Page | 19
2025:JHHC:11289
D.W.1 S. Pramanik who is Tisco Employer and resides
in quarter No.X-N-27 Road No.20 has stated that his house is
situated on Road No.20 northern side of which there is Tata
Workers Union School. According to him on 20.06.2002 in
between 08:30 a.m. to 09:30 a.m., no fire and counter fire took
place between miscreants and police near the above place of
occurrence rather on the next day morning, he came to know
from daily newspaper about the said occurrence of firing
between police and miscreants. He has also stated that Cross
Road No.20 is situated at a distance of 1 k.m. from Road
No.20.
D.W.2 Rajesh Kumar owns a shop on Road No.20. He
has also stated that towards north of his shop, there is Tata
Workers Union School and Cross Road No.20 cannot be seen
from Road No.20 which is at a distance of 1 k.m. Both roads
are different and distinct. He has also stated that in between
08:30 a.m. to 09:30 a.m., no firing between police and
miscreants took place at that place of occurrence.
D.W.3 Vijay Kumar Karki has also deposed in the
same line that Cross Road No.20 and Road No.20 are
different places and no such occurrence of firing between
Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006 Page | 20
2025:JHHC:11289police and miscreants took place at Road No.20 in between
08:30 a.m. to 09:30 a.m. on 20.06.2002.
D.W.4 Jayant Kumar has stated that till 05.05.2003, he
was residing in quarter No.6 situated at Cross Road No.20.
Road No.20 situated at a distance of 1 k.m. from his house.
According to him, on Cross Road No.20, no occurrence of
firing took place between police and miscreants on 20.06.2002
in between 08:30 a.m. to 09:30 a.m.
D.W.5 Sri Ayodhya Singh is officiating Tax Daroga,
Jamshedpur and claimed to acquainted with the area of
Jamshedpur. According to him Road No.20 and Cross Road
No.20 are different places and having different path to
approach both the roads. He has also produced the map of
the city marked Ext.A.
13. From the aforesaid discussion of testimony of
prosecution witnesses, it is crystal clear that the main
prosecution witnesses, S.I. Arvind Kumar Singh (P.W.7), S.I.
Arvind Kumar (P.W.5) and S.I. Omprakash, were engaged in
apprehending the notorious criminals. On the basis of
credible confidential information. It is categorically proved
consistently by the informant that when they reached near
Road No.20 Tata Workers Union School, they found Akhilesh
Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006 Page | 21
2025:JHHC:11289
Kumar Singh, Santosh Gupta and one unknown were
standing near Yamaha motorcycle. The informant (P.W.7)
along with S.I. Arvind Kumar (P.W.5) and S.I. Omprakash
(P.W.11) tried to apprehend the miscreants then one of the
miscreants aiming to S.I. Omprakash and S.I. Arvind Kumar
Singh twice opened fire but they saved themselves.
Meanwhile, present appellant Akhilesh Singh twice fired on
the Maruti Vehicle No.BR 16N 6061 wherein on driving seat
S.I. Arvind Kumar was sitting, the pellet making hole in the
front glass caused injury below his right eye to S.I. Arvind
Kumar (P.W.5). It is also proved that in order to defend
themselves, the police personnel also counter fired upon the
miscreants from their respective service revolver. The
miscreants were also chased after receiving information by
the then Officer-In-Charge V.N. Oraon (P.W.10) but the
miscreants snatched the motorcycle Kawasaki Bajaj of P.W.1
and managed to flee away. It is also not disputed that the
present appellant was also indicted for commission of
murder of Jailor of Sakchi Jail and also other serious offences.
The M.V.I. report of the Maruti vehicle also substantially
corroborates the fact that the front glass was found broken
making a hole and two pellets were also recovered from
Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006 Page | 22
2025:JHHC:11289
inside the Maruti Car marked Ext.8/1. The injury sustained
by P.W.5 S.I. Arvind Kumar who was sitting in the Maruti
Car at the relevant time also corroborates the fact that the
injuries sustained below the right eye and after first aid, he
was discharged on the same day. It is also proved by the
prosecution that the firearm was shot by present appellant
over the Maruti Car twice with intention to kill the police
personnel sitting inside. Not only this, the present appellant
and his associates have also attempted to kill S.I. Arvind
Kumar Singh and S.I. Omprakash by firing two rounds
aiming towards them but fortunately they were saved.
14. The main defence of appellant is regarding dispute
about exact place of occurrence which is mentioned in the
F.I.R. to be Road No.20 but in the evidence, P.W.5 has said
the place of occurrence to be Cross Road No.20. Such type of
minor discrepancy particularly where the difference of
distance is only 1 k.m. between two places, cannot be
countenanced so much to disbelieve the whole prosecution
story. The main identifying place is the Tata Workers Union
School where the accused persons were assembled, that is
stated by the I.O. while inspecting the place of occurrence for
identification of the informant and other eye witnesses.
Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006 Page | 23
2025:JHHC:11289
Another objection regarding perfunctory investigation could
also not be entertained. As pointed out by learned counsel for
the appellant regarding non-seizure of bloodstained clothes
of the injured, bloodstained seat cover of the Maruti Car, no
inquiry about the ownership of the Yamaha motorcycle RX-
100 No.BR 16C 2547. It is settled law that where the
occurrence is proved beyond doubt, any defect or irregularity
in the investigation cannot give any premium to the accused.
The defence witnesses examined in this case have only
pointed out that the two places, the Road No.20 and Cross
Road No.20 are different places having different path to go
and situated at a distance of 1 k.m. from each other. Simply
asserting that they have not got any information regarding
occurrence of firing between police and miscreants, does not
make the prosecution story doubtful. There is no sound
reason to disbelieve or discard the prosecution version only
on account of minor discrepancies. The cumulative effect of
overall evidence available on record clearly goes to show that
it is a grave offence of firing upon police personnel
obstructing them from discharge of their official duties at the
cost of deadly assault and attempted murder by hard core
criminals. It appears that the learned Trial Court has very
Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006 Page | 24
2025:JHHC:11289
wisely and aptly apprised, appreciated and scrutinized the
evidence available on record and arrived at right conclusion
about the guilt of the appellant. I do not find any valid reason
to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence of the appellant passed by learned Trial
Court. I find no merits in the points of argument raised on
behalf of the appellant, therefore, this appeal stands
dismissed.
15. Pending I.A., if any, stands dismissed.
16. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court
record be sent back to the concerned Trial Court for
information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated: 11/04/2025
Sachin / NAFR
Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006 Page | 25
[ad_2]
Source link