Akhilesh Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

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 ]

¶5

……

¶6

Akhilesh Singh Son of Shri Chandragupt Singh, resident of Sidhgora, P.S. Sidhgora (Jamshedpur), Dist. East Singhbhum.

¶7

… Appellant

¶8

Versus The State of Jharkhand … Respondent …… For the Appellant : Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Spl. P.P.

¶9

……

¶10

P R E S E N T

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶12

……

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

C.A.V. on 15.01.2025 Pronounced on 11.04.2025

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006 Page | 1

¶18

2025:JHHC:11289

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006 Page | 2

¶22

2025:JHHC:11289

¶23

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.

¶24

Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006

¶25

Page | 3

¶26

2025:JHHC:11289

¶27

The informant informed the above occurrence through

¶28

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 OfficerIn-Incharge of Sidgora Police Station.

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

6. In the course of trial, altogether 11 witnesses were examined by prosecution. Apart from oral testimony of witnesses, following documentary evidence were adduced:

¶32

Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006

¶33

Page | 4

¶34

2025:JHHC:11289

¶35

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.

¶36

7. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence

¶37

were adduced on behalf of accused Santosh Kumar Gupta and Santosh Pandey. The case of defence is denial

¶38

Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006

¶39

Page | 5

¶40

2025:JHHC:11289

¶41

from occurrence to false implication. Although, five defence witnesses have been examined on behalf of accused Akhilesh Singh (present appellant).

¶42

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.

¶43

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.

¶44

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

¶45

Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006

¶46

Page | 6

¶47

2025:JHHC:11289

¶48

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

¶49

Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006

¶50

Page | 7

¶51

2025:JHHC:11289

¶52

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

¶53

Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006 Page | 8

¶54

2025:JHHC:11289

¶55

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.

¶56

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.

¶57

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.

¶58

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

¶59

Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006

¶60

Page | 9

¶61

2025:JHHC:11289

¶62

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.

¶63

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-InCharge S.I. V.N. Oraon as Ext.1/1 and formal F.I.R. as Ext.2.

¶64

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.

¶65

P.W.4 S.I. Jairam Prasad succeeded the further charge

¶66

of investigation of this case and submitted charge-sheet No.93

¶67

Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006

¶68

Page | 10

¶69

2025:JHHC:11289

¶70

of 2003 against accused Santosh Pandey only on the basis of confessional statement of said co-accused.

¶71

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

¶72

Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006

¶73

Page | 11

¶74

2025:JHHC:11289

¶75

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-cumseizure list of his service pistol and pellets used in his defence.

¶76

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

¶77

Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006

¶78

Page | 12

¶79

2025:JHHC:11289

¶80

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 crossexamination to disbelieve or discard his testimony.

¶81

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.

¶82

P.W.7 S.I. Arvind Kumar Singh is the informant of this

¶83

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-InCharge 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.

¶84

Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006

¶85

Page | 13

¶86

2025:JHHC:11289

¶87

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 selfstatement 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.

¶88

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

¶89

Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006

¶90

Page | 14

¶91

2025:JHHC:11289

¶92

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.

¶93

P.W.8 Budhinath Chowdhary has proved the signature

¶94

of M.V.I. Jitendra Kumar over the M.V.I. report as Ext.6.

¶95

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:

¶96

(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.

¶97

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

¶98

Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006

¶99

Page | 15

¶100

2025:JHHC:11289

¶101

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-InCharge 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

¶102

Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006

¶103

Page | 16

¶104

2025:JHHC:11289

¶105

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

¶106

Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006

¶107

Page | 17

¶108

2025:JHHC:11289

¶109

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.

¶110

In the cross-examination of this witness, certain latches in the investigation has been pointed out regarding nonseizure 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.

¶111

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

¶112

Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006

¶113

Page | 18

¶114

2025:JHHC:11289

¶115

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.

¶116

12. On the other hand, defence witnesses examined on behalf of appellant Akhilesh Singh is discussed hereunder:

¶117

Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006

¶118

Page | 19

¶119

2025:JHHC:11289

¶120

D.W.1 S. Pramanik who is Tisco Employer and resides

¶121

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.

¶122

D.W.2 Rajesh Kumar owns a shop on Road No.20. He

¶123

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.

¶124

D.W.3 Vijay Kumar Karki has also deposed in the

¶125

same line that Cross Road No.20 and Road No.20 are different places and no such occurrence of firing between

¶126

Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006

¶127

Page | 20

¶128

2025:JHHC:11289

¶129

police and miscreants took place at Road No.20 in between 08:30 a.m. to 09:30 a.m. on 20.06.2002.

¶130

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.

¶131

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.

¶132

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

¶133

Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006

¶134

Page | 21

¶135

2025:JHHC:11289

¶136

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

¶137

Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006

¶138

Page | 22

¶139

2025:JHHC:11289

¶140

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.

¶141

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.

¶142

Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006

¶143

Page | 23

¶144

2025:JHHC:11289

¶145

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 RX100 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

¶146

Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006

¶147

Page | 24

¶148

2025:JHHC:11289

¶149

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.

¶150

15. Pending I.A., if any, stands dismissed.

¶151

16. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court record be sent back to the concerned Trial Court for information and needful.

¶152

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶153

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 11/04/2025 Sachin / NAFR

¶154

Cr.A(SJ) No.881 of 2006

¶155

Page | 25