Allowed

Shyam Sundar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC8 Apr 2026Cr.A(SJ)/3/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand allowed the criminal appeal. Finding that ingredients for house trespass and extortion were absent and that witness statements improved, indicating doubt about the appellant's active role, the Court quashed the conviction and set aside the sentence.

What did the court decide?

Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.12.2018 and 07.12.2018 are quashed and set aside. Appellant is discharged from bail liability.

Shyam Sundar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

2026:JHHC:9988

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.3 of 2019

¶3

[Against the Judgment of conviction dated 06.12.2018 and Order of sentence dated 07.12.2018, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - 1^st -cum- Special Judge – FTC, Bokaro in Sessions Trial No.173 of 2010]

¶4

Shyam Sundar Singh, son of late Sipahi Singh, aged about 65 years, resident of co-operative Khatal, P.O & P.S – B. S. City, District – Bokaro (Jharkhand). ….. Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR --------- For the Appellant : Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Lily Sahay, A.P.P ---------

¶9

Order No.03/ Dated: 08th April, 2026

¶10

1. Heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Lily Sahay, learned A.P.P.

¶11

2. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 06.12.2018 and order of sentence dated 07.12.2018, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - 1^st -cum- Special Judge – FTC, Bokaro, in Sessions Trial No.173 of 2010, arising out of B.S. City P.S. Case No.161 of 2008 (G.R. No.712 of 2008), whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 448, 323/ 34, 386/34, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Section 448/ 34 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 386/34 IPC, simple imprisonment for six months under Section

¶12

- 1 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.3 of 2019

¶13

2026:JHHC:9988

¶14

323/ 34 IPC and three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- under Sections 307/ 34 IPC and in default of payment of fine, the convict has to further undergo imprisonment for two months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶15

3. The prosecution story, in short, is that the informant namely, Umesh Prasad has lodged a fardbeyan on 01.06.2008 stating therein that in the evening of 01.06.2008 when he was making payment to his labourer, at his house, situated near Ansari Cycle shop 185, Cooperative Colony, PS-B.S.City, this accused along with others, armed with dagger etc., reached there and put demand of rangdari from him. The informant denied to make payment at which another accused Shailesh Yadav started assaulting the informant thereon. The brother of the informant, namely, Raju Kumar, when intervened, the accused gave dagger blow on his stomach. The other brother of informant, Madhav, when tried to intervene, he was also assaulted, by means of dagger by the hand of this accused. The other accused assaulted the informant party by means of push, fists and slaps thereon. Thereafter, the accused snatched Rs. 5000/- from the informant and after arrival of local people, they fled away from there. The treatment of both brothers of the informant was subsequently made, in a clinic.

¶16

On the basis of above fardbeyan of the informant, the criminal law has been put into motion by lodging an F.I.R

¶17

- 2 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.3 of 2019

¶18

2026:JHHC:9988

¶19

being B.S. City P.S. Case No. 161/2008, corresponding to G.R. 712/2008 under sections U/s 448, 386, 387, 326, 307, 323, 34 IPC against the present appellant along with other accused persons.

¶20

Although in the F.I.R this appellant has been shown present along with other accused persons, but no specific role has been assigned to this appellant.

¶21

The police, after completing the investigation, has submitted the charge-sheet and the court has framed charge under Sections 448/34, 386/34, 323/34, 326/34 and 307/34 I.P.C. Thereafter, the case has been committed to the court of Sessions to which the appellant has pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried and accordingly, the trial has commenced.

¶22

There was a split up trial and in the present case, the appellant has alone faced the trial.

¶23

4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined altogether 08 witnesses and their depositions, in short, are as follows:-

¶24

5. P.W.-1, Raju Kumar Sao , is the injured brother of the informant and he has stated that accused Shailesh Yadav has stabbed him with dagger on his abdomen in two places. He has also deposed that at the time of stabbing he was caught hold by the accused Shyam Sundar from the back.

¶25

In cross-examination, he has admitted that the accused-appellant runs a Khatal .

¶26

- 3 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.3 of 2019

¶27

2026:JHHC:9988

¶28

6. P.W.-2, Manoj Kumar Singh , is also the brother of

¶29

the informant and he has stated the same facts as stated by the P.W. - 1.

¶30

In cross-examination, he has admitted that he has not seen the occurrence and as such admittedly he is not an eye witness.

¶31

7. P.W.-3, Salim Ansari @ Salim Khan , is an independent witness and he has stated in his examination in chief that the accused Shailesh Yadav stabbed to Raju Kumar and his brother Madhav and the accused were demanding rangdari from Umesh Kumar.

¶32

8. P.W.-4, Noor Alam , is a motor-cycle mechanic and he has been declared hostile.

¶33

9. P.W.-5, Dhiraj Kumar , is also the brother of the informant and claimed to be an eye witness. He has claimed to identify the accused. He is also a seizure list witness.

¶34

In his cross-examination, he has stated that the police has recorded his statement on the next date of occurrence. 10. P.W.-6, Umesh Kumar @ Umesh Prasad , is the informant of the case and has supported the prosecution case.

¶35

In cross-examination, he has admitted that Shyam Sunder Yadav runs a grocery shop, which is situated 200 feet away from the place of occurrence.

¶36

11. P.W.-7, Geeta Devi , is the wife of informant (P.W.-6)

¶37

and she has stated that she came out from the house on

¶38

- 4 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.3 of 2019

¶39

2026:JHHC:9988

¶40

hearing hulla . She has stated that accused persons were demanding money and rangdari and on refusal, they started assaulting them.

¶41

In cross-examination, she has also admitted that the accused-appellant runs a shop of cattle feed and she has not seen the accused coming at the place of occurrence.

¶42

12. P.W.-8, Dr. Manish Kumar , is the medical officer who has proved the injury report of P.W.-1 and opined that the injury is simple in nature.

¶43

13. The trial Court, after recording the evidence of witnesses, cross-examination, and the statement of the accused person, has convicted the appellant under Sections 448, 323/ 34, 386/34, 307/34 and sentenced him as stated above.

¶44

14. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the following grounds :

¶45

(i) Sections 448 IPC is regarding house trespass. Admittedly, as per the F.I.R, there was no house trespass and as such, this section has been applied without application of mind by the trial court.

¶46

(ii) Section 386 IPC relates to extortion, but the prosecution story, as disclosed, clearly suggests that there was no extortion, rather, it best, it may be the case of robbery, for which the appellant has not been charged.

¶47

(iii) So far Section 323 IPC is concerned, the injury is there, but no role has been assigned to

¶48

- 5 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.3 of 2019

¶49

2026:JHHC:9988

¶50

this appellant.

¶51

(iv) So far Section 307 IPC is concerned, the injury caused is not life threatening and further, so far as the present appellant is concerned, his presence was there, but he has not played any active role and as such, the offence under Section 307 IPC is also not made out.

¶52

15. By referring to the depositions, especially, the deposition of injured witness i.e. P.W.-1, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is improvement in his version. He has not disclosed such version before the police, as is evident from para – 30 of the case diary.

¶53

P.W.- 3 has also improved his version so far as holding of the injured/ victim, as is evident from para – 9 of the case diary.

¶54

Similarly, with regard to deposition of P.W.-6, para – 4 of the case diary clearly suggests that there is improvement in his version also.

¶55

16. It has further been submitted that all the witnesses have admitted that at the place of occurrence, this appellant having his shop and his presence at the place of occurrence is quite natural. It has also been submitted that suggestion has been given that since this appellant has refused to be a witness to the incident and as such, he has been arrayed as an accused.

¶56

17. By referring to the above arguments, it has been

¶57

- 6 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.3 of 2019

¶58

2026:JHHC:9988

¶59

submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the conviction of this appellant is bad in law as because the ingredients of Sections 448 & 386 IPC are not present at all. Further, so far as Sections 323 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC are concerned, the presence of this appellant at the place of occurrence is quite natural and his participation, which has been alleged in the deposition, has not been disclosed before the police and the investigating officer has also not been examined and as such, the appellant has suffered and could not cross-examine on those issues. Further, there is suggestion that his presence at the place of occurrence was natural and due to refusal as a witness, this appellant has been arrayed as an accused.

¶60

18. It has also been argued that there is exaggeration in the incident, as the injury of two persons has been shown, while the injury report of only one person is on record. Further, the injury is simple in nature.

¶61

On the strength of above argument, judgment of acquittal has been prayed.

¶62

19. On the other hand, learned AP.P has supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, stating that three witnesses, i.e. P.Ws. - 1, 3 and 6 have clearly stated that the present appellant has participated in the crime by catching the injured person from the behind and facilitated the crime. Hence, the conviction of this appellant, on the strength of Section 34 IPC, is quite justified.

¶63

- 7 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.3 of 2019

¶64

2026:JHHC:9988

¶65

20. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of records, it appears to this Court that :-

¶66

(a) the ingredients of Sections 448 & 386/34 are not present and as such conviction under those sections is bad in law and accordingly, it is, hereby, set aside.

¶67

(b) So far as conviction under Sections 323 & 307 read with Section 34 IPC are concerned, the presence of this appellant at the place of occurrence has been proved, but his presence is quite natural as because he was having a shop at the place of occurrence.

¶68

(c) further, the witnesses have improved their version as is evident from their statements given before the police in the case diary.

¶69

(d) further, this Court finds that there is exaggeration in the incident, regarding the injury, nature of injury, number of injury and thus, the statements of the witnesses have to be evaluated with caution and on cautious evaluation of the evidence, this Court finds that there is arena of doubt, so far as participation of this appellant in the commission of crime is concerned.

¶70

21. In view of above discussions, this Court finds that judgment of conviction against the present appellant is not sustainable and accordingly, the Judgment of conviction dated 06.12.2018 and order of sentence dated 07.12.2018,

¶71

- 8 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.3 of 2019

¶72

2026:JHHC:9988

¶73

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – 1^st - cumSpecial Judge – FTC, Bokaro, in Sessions Trial No.173 of 2010 is, hereby, quashed and set aside.

¶74

22. In the result, the appeal stands allowed and accordingly disposed of.

¶75

23 . The appellant is on the bail, hence, he is discharged from the liability of bail bond.

¶76

24. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this Judgment.

¶77

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶78

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, the 08^th April, 2026 Ravi-Chandan /- NAFR Uploaded on 16.04.2026

¶79

- 9 -

¶80

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.3 of 2019

Shyam Sundar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Sundar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarjit Kaur Vs the State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Swapan Kumar Sinha Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner Pal Vs Rajesh Pandey And Ors.

Nitesh Kumar Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lal Babu Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chakradhar Bauri Vs the State of Jharkhand