Jharkhand High Court
Azim Akhtar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 June, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 150 of 2025
With
I.A. No. 1827 of 2025
---------
Azim Akhtar ..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
----------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
———-
For the Appellant : Mr. B.M. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Naveen Kr. Jaiswal, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate
———
04/17.06.2025 This Criminal Appeal has been filed on
behalf of the Appellant challenging the judgment of
conviction and sentence dated 28.01.2025, passed by
the learned District & Addl. Sessions Judge-III,
Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 95 of 2019, arising out
of Majhgaon P.S. Case No.15 of 2018, by which the
Appellant, namely Azim Akhtar has been convicted for
the offence under Sections 307, 147, 148, 341/149,
323/149, 324/149, 504/149 and 506/149 of I.P.C.
and sentenced to undergo R.I. for Seven (07) years
with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, S.I. for One (01) year, S.I.
for One (01) year, S.I. for One (01) month, S.I. for Six
(06) months, R.I. for Two (02) years, S.I. for One (01)
year and S.I. for One (01) year for the offences under
Sections 307 of I.P.C., 147 I.P.C., 148 I.P.C., 341/149
I.P.C., 323/149 I.P.C., 324/149 I.P.C., 504/149 I.P.C.
and 506/149 I.P.C. respectively.
2
However, all the sentences have been
directed to run concurrently.
2. As per F.I.R., the appellant and other
17 accused persons are alleged to have assaulted the
injured, namely Mujibul Haque, who was the father of
the Informant, by Tangi and other deadly weapons
causing profusely bleeding injury on his head. It is
alleged that the other co-accused persons had also
assaulted the Informant and his family members by
means of Lathi, Dunta.
I.A. No. 1827 of 2025
3. This instant Interlocutory Application has
been filed on behalf of the appellant under Section
430(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of his sentence during
pendency of the Criminal Appeal.
4. Heard Mr. B.M. Tripathi, learned Sr.
Counsel, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the
State and Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned counsel for the
Informant.
5. Learned Sr. Counsel for the appellant
submitted that the impugned judgment and sentence
passed by the learned Trial Court is illegal, arbitrary
and not sustainable in law. It is submitted that
though there is direct allegation against the appellant
for assaulting the Informant on his head and causing
grievous injury, however, the Doctor, namely Naushad
Hussain, who was examined as P.W.7 in this case, has
found simple injury on the person of the injured
3
Mujibul Haque. It is submitted that C.T. Scan report
was not produced before the Doctor during the trial
before the learned Court below. It is submitted that
the injured Mujibul Haque was not examined. It is
submitted that there was no repeated Tangi blow given
by the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant is
in custody since 28th January, 2025, hence the
appellant may be enlarged on bail.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for
the State has opposed the prayer for bail. It is
submitted that there is specific allegation against the
appellant for assaulting the injured Mujibul Haque by
Tangi. It is submitted that there are several eye
witnesses, i.e. P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4. P.W.5 and
P.W.6, namely Khurshida Khatoon, Salmu Nisha,
Shabnam Parveen, Md. Ahmad Hussain and Diwar
Hussain Ansari respectively and who have supported
the allegation of assault against the appellant on the
head of the Informant. It is submitted that P.W.7,
namely Dr. Naushad Hussain i.e. the Doctor had
found injury on the head of the injured Mujibul Haque
and hence, prayer for bail made on behalf of the
appellant may be rejected.
7. Learned counsel for the Informant, after
adopting the submission of the learned counsel for the
State, has further submitted that this is a case of
assault upon a senior citizen, aged more than 65 years
on the date of occurrence and who is also a paralyzed
4
person. It is submitted that there is direct allegation
against the appellant for assaulting by Tangi on the
head of the injured- Mujibul Haque. It is submitted
that the Informant, i.e. P.W.4, namely Md. Sikandar
Ansari, is eye witness in this case. It is submitted that
P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.5 and P.W.6, namely
Khurshida Khatoon, Salmu Nisha, Shabnam Parveen,
Md. Ahmad Hussain and Diwar Hussain Ansari
respectively have also supported the allegation against
the appellant and the Injured-Mujibul Haque was
taken to Hospital for treatment. It is submitted that
the I.O. has also supported and corroborated the
prosecution case and hence, the prayer for bail may be
rejected.
8. Perused the Lower Court Record and
considered the submission of both sides
9. On perusal of Lower Court Record, it
appears that there is an allegation against the
appellant and one Md. Moin and one Afroz @ Apo for
causing injury on the head of the injured by Tangi, rod
and Dunda, however, the said injured, namely Mujibul
Haque has not been examined during trial before the
learned Court below.
10. It also appears that presence of P.W.2,
namely Salmu Nisha, who happens to be the sister of
P.W.4- namely Md. Sikandar Ansari and the presence
of P.W.3, namely Shabnam Parveen is also doubted.
5
11. It reveals that P.W.7 is Dr. Naushad
Hussain, who had examined the injured and had
found following injuries on his person:
“(i) Lacerated wound over scalp at
frontal region longitudinal in direction, measuring
about 2 inch long, 2 inch width, ½ inch deep by
sharp object. ”
The said injury report was marked as
Ext.P-2/1/PW7.
During cross-examination he stated
that the injured Mujibul Haque did not produce any
CT Scan report or any document regarding any other
medical treatment.
P.W.7-Dr. Naushad Hussain also stated
that apparently the injuries were simple as no CT
Scan report was produced and it cannot be said that
the injuries were grievous or not.
12. It also appears that during the trial
neither the CT Scan Report nor any report from Sadar
Hospital Chaibasa was produced regarding the
treatment of the injured-Mujibul Haque.
13. It appears from the evidence of the I.O.,
i.e. P.W.9, namely Vijay Kumar Dwivedi that no blood
was seized from the place of occurrence.
14. Considering the fact that the injured
Mujibul Haque was not examined during trial by the
learned Court below and the Doctor Naushad
Hussain, i.e. P.W. 7 has stated that the injuries on
6
the person of the injured Mujibul Haque was simple
in nature and on the facts and in the circumstances
of this case, the sentence of the appellant, namely
Azim Akhtar is suspended during the pendency of
this appeal and the appellant, namely Azim Akhtar is
directed to be released on Bail, on furnishing bail
bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand) with
two sureties of the like amount each in connection
with Sessions Trial No. 95 of 2019, arising out of
Majhgaon P.S. Case No.15 of 2018, to the
satisfaction of the learned District & Addl. Session
Judge-III, Chaibasa/or His Successor Court, subject
to the condition that the appellant, namely Azim Akhtar
shall deposit Rs.25,000/- by Demand Draft/or deposit
Rs.25,000/- cash in the office of the learned Court below
at the time of furnishing bail bonds, which will be
handed over to the injured, namely Mujibul Haque or
his dependents by the learned Trial Court.
Thus, I.A. No. 1827 of 2025 is allowed and
stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
s.m.