Partly allowed¶76

Yogendra Verma v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC13 Jan 2025Cr.A(SJ)/1463/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Appeal partly allowed with modification in sentence: conviction under Section 326 I.P.C. affirmed; imprisonment reduced to the period already undergone (about nine months' custody during trial). ¶76

Yogendra Verma Vs State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal partly allowed with modification in sentence: conviction under Section 326 I.P.C. affirmed; imprisonment reduced to the period already undergone (about nine months' custody during trial).

¶76

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 326 I.P.C. was sustainable, the appellant contending that the incident took place suddenly, that the place of occurrence was not proved by the prosecution, and that the witnesses gave inconsistent and contradictory testimony. +1 more

¶49

Court's answer

Out of the six witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.1 and P.W.3 were the most important witnesses, on whose evidence the appellate court relied in reviewing the conviction.

¶58

Ratio / Principle

The learned trial court properly considered the overall aspect of the case; the conviction and sentence under Section 326 of the I.P.C. are affirmed.

¶75

Key takeaways

Since the appellant had already undergone nine months' custody during the trial and two decades had lapsed from the date of occurrence, considering the overall aspect of the case the appellant is sentenced to imprisonment already undergone.ratio¶75

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal — Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1463 of 2006, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, decided 13.01.2025 by Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J. Appellant Yogendra Verma, convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No.VI, Jamshedpur (Sessions Case No. 364 of 2002) under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code for stabbing the informant in the stomach during an assault near the bus stand in front of Chhaya Nagar, Jamshedpur on 17.02.2002, and sentenced to R.I. for 7 years each with a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation. Reviewing the evidence of P.W.3 (informant Anish Kumar) and P.W.1 (Dr. Subhash Chandra Panda, who found a punctured wound right iliac fossa close to the inguinal region with active bleeding, inflicted by a sharp and pointed weapon), the appellate court affirmed the conviction under Section 326 I.P.C.; however, since the appellant had already undergone nine months' custody during the trial and two decades had lapsed from the date of occurrence, the sentence was reduced to imprisonment already undergone. Appeal partly allowed with modification in sentence; pending I.A., if any, disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1463 of 2006

¶2

------

¶3

Yogendra Verma Son of Late Khemu Verma

¶4

Resident of Hum Pipe, Chhaya Nagar,

¶5

P.O + P.S. Sitaramdera, Jamshedpur,

¶6

District- Singhbhum East.

¶7

…. …. Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Jharkhand .... .... Respondent ------ For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Akanksha Priya, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P. ------

¶10

P R E S E N T

¶11

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

Dated- 13.01.2025

¶14

By Court:- Heard Ms. Akanksha Priya, learned counsel appearing for the

¶15

appellant as well as Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P. appearing for the State.

¶16

2. Instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order of

¶17

conviction and sentence dated 16.09.2006 & 18.09.2006 passed by

¶18

learned Additional Sessions Judge FTC No.VI, Jamshedpur, in

¶19

Sessions Case No. 364 of 2002, whereby and where under the

¶20

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1463 of 2006 Page | 1

¶21

appellant has been held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and has sentenced to undergo

¶22

R.I. for 7 years each with a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation.

¶23

Factual Matrix

¶24

3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal as depicted in F.I.R. is that on 17.02.2002 at about 07:00 PM, the informant was going to a party with his friend and when they reached near the bus stand in front of Chhaya Nagar, they saw that one person was lying on the road and 5/6 persons including this appellant were beating with fists to another. Upon humanitarian ground, the informant and his friend started lifting the person laying on the ground. Then, the accused persons including this appellant shouted to kill and started assaulting. One accused (Rampada Karmakar) caught hold the hands of the informant from back side and this appellant took out a knife and stabbed in the stomach, which hit the lower abdomen and caused severe injury to the informant due to which he fell down. When the people standing nearby reached there, the accused persons fled away from the spot.

¶25

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1463 of 2006 Page | 2

¶26

4. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan, Sitaramdera P.S. Case no.

¶27

06/2002 was registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 341 of the

¶28

I.P.C. against accused persons including the appellant.

¶29

5 . After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted

¶30

against the appellant along with three another accused persons

¶31

and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial and

¶32

disposal.

¶33

6. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against accused

¶34

persons, altogether 6 witnesses were examined and following documents were exhibited.

¶35

Exhibit-1 – Injury report of Anish Kumar by signature of Dr. S.C.

¶36

Panda.

¶37

Exhibit 2:- Injury report of the same made by Dr. S. Pradhan.

¶38

Exhibit 3:- Fardbayan of Anish Kumar

¶39

Exhibit 4:- Arrest memo of Shiv Karmakar.

¶40

Exhibit 5:- Arrest memo of Yogendra Verma.

¶41

Exhibit 6:- Arrest memo of Rampado Karmakar.

¶42

Exhibit 7:- Arrest memo of Seth Karmakar.

¶43

Exhibit 8:- Formal F.I.R.

¶44

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1463 of 2006 Page | 3

¶45

7 . The case of defence is denial from the occurrence and false

¶46

implication. The defence has also examined four witnesses.

¶47

8. After conclusion of trial, after appraisal of the evidence adduced

¶48

on behalf of the parties, the learned trial court held the appellant guilty for the offences under Section 326 of the I.P.C. and sentenced as stated above.

¶49

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is allegation of stabbing the informant by knife. Admittedly, the incident took place in a sudden manner. The place of occurrence has also not been proved by the prosecution and witnesses have given inconsistent and contradictory testimony in this regard.

¶50

10. In alternative, it is submitted that the appellant has undergone about nine month’s custody during the trial of the case and have sufficiently been punished for his guilt. Hence, this appeal may be allowed by setting aside the judgment and order of conviction and

¶51

sentence under Section 326 of the IP.C or the sentence of the appellant may be reduced to already undergone.

¶52

11. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of

¶53

the appellant and submitted that the nature of injury although

¶54

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1463 of 2006 Page | 4

¶55

found on the body of injured has been found to be dangerous to

¶56

life and the learned trail court has properly considered the evidence available on record and passed the impugned judgment and order which suffers from no illegality or infirmities. This appeal is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed.

¶57

12. I have gone through the entire record along with impugned judgment and contentions raised on behalf of both side.

¶58

It appears that out of 6 witnesses examined by the prosecution, the most important witness is P.W.1 and P.W.3.

¶59

P.W.3 (Anish Kumar) is the informant of this case. According to

¶60

his evidence, on 17.02.2002 at about 07:00 PM, he along with his

¶61

friend was going to attend a party by motorcycle and in the way they saw that a person was lying on the road. When they reached

¶62

to rescue, they were caught by Shibu Karmakar and Seth Karmakar and the present appellant stabbed him in the stomach due to which the endocrine vein of the informant was punctured

¶63

and he fell down and his friend Sonu Singh took him to the hospital where he was treated.

¶64

In his cross-examination, he has stated that at the place of

¶65

occurrence several trucks were parked and admitted that none of

¶66

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1463 of 2006 Page | 5

¶67

the drivers or conductors were examined in his presence. It also admitted that when he was stabbed by knife, he screamed, but none of the drivers or conductors reached there to rescue him.

¶68

P.W.1 (Dr. Subhash Chandra Panda) is the doctor who has examined the informant and found following injuries:-

¶69

(i) Punctured wound right iliac fossa close to inguinal region with

¶70

active bleeding

¶71

2/3” x 1/6” depth weapon used to inflict injury sharp and pointed .

¶72

13. In view of discussions of the above important witness, I am of the

¶73

firm view that the learned trial court has properly considered the

¶74

overall aspect of the case. Therefore, conviction and sentence

¶75

under Section 326 of the I.P.C. is affirmed. So far sentence of appellant is concerned, it appears that appellant has already undergone nine months custody during trial of the case and now two decades have been lapsed from the date of occurrence. Considering the overall aspect of the case, the appellant is sentenced for imprisonment already undergone.

¶76

14. In view of the above, this appeal is partly allowed with modification in sentence.

¶77

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1463 of 2006 Page | 6

¶78