Ravi Chaurasia Vs State of Jharkhand

¶1

2026:JHHC:16560

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 244 of 2005

¶4

---------

¶5

Ravi Chaurasia, son of Late Ramnand Chaurasia, Resident of Kasidih Lilne No.9, Quarter No.239, Police Station-Sakchi, Town-Jamshedpur, DistrictSinghbhum (East) … … Appellant

¶6

Versus The State of Jharkhand …. Respondent --------- For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, A.P.P.

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT

¶9

----------- Dated: 09^th June, 2026

¶10

Heard Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P.

¶11

The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 06.01.2005 and 18.01.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-Cum-Fast Track Court No.II, Jamshedpur in S.T. No.529 of 1995, whereby and whereunder the appellant along with co-accused have been held guilty for the offences under section 364/34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years.

¶12

Factual Matrix:-

¶13

Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 20.05.1993 at about 17:00 hours, the informant, Rajendar Parsad Sahu along with his brother, Suraj Mal Sahu (since deceased) were standing near Prabhat Khabar Office in front of Anjli Roadways at New Kalimati Road to get the tempo to go to Sakchi Market. In the meantime, six persons boarding on three vehicles came there and accused Kedar Sahu and

¶14

2026:JHHC:16560

¶15

Manoj got down from the scooter and started assaulting his brother brutally and took away him on Hero Honda Motorcycle, seated between Ravi Chaurasia and an unknown persons. The brother of the informant started crying but he was taken away on the point of pistol by all the accused persons. The informant has reason to believe that due to previous enmity, his brother, Suraj Mal Sahu was kidnapped with a purpose to do away his life. The informant chased the accused persons to save the life of his brother but failed. Upon hearing hulla, Vishwanath Parsad, Rajesh Parsad and others came to the informant and the informant narrated the story to them and they also saw the accused persons taking the informant’s brother on the motorcycle. Later on, the informant came to know that his brother Suraj Mal was found dead near Janta College where the informant went and saw pool of blood and his brother shot dead by the pistol and the injury on his head.

¶16

On the basis of fardbayan of the informant, Golmuri P.S. Case No.92 of 1993 was instituted for the offences under sections 364 and 302/34 of IPC. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions, where S.T No.529 of 1995 was registered. The accused persons have denied the charges leveled against them and claimed to be tried.

¶17

In course of trial altogether, 13 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution namely:-

¶18

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.244 of 2005

¶19

2

¶20

2026:JHHC:16560

¶21

P.W.1- Rajesh Saw P.W.2- Vishawnath Prasad Sahu P.W.3 -Kavita Kumari P.W.4 -Ram Bilash Yadav P.W.5 -Rajendra Shah (informant) P.W.6 -Narendra Singh P.W.7- Mohan Lal Yadav P.W.8- Shyam Bihari Jaiswal P.W.9- Radhika Devi P.W.10 -Gurmit Singh P.W.11- Dr. Lallan Chaudhary P.W.12 - Gopal Chandra Singh P.W.13- Vinay Prasad

¶22

Apart from oral evidence the prosecution has also adduced the following documentary evidence, which are as under:-

¶23

Ext.1- Signature of informant on Fardbayan Ext.1/A- Signature of Mohan Lal Yadav on seizure list Ext.1/B- Signature of Shyam Bihari Jaiwal on seizure list Ext.-1/C - Signature of Vinay Prasad on seizure list. Ext.2- Carbon Copy of P.M. Report Ext.A - Requisition for carbon copy of Post mortem report

¶24

On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced

¶25

by the defence. The case of defence is completely denial form the occurrence and plea of innocence.

¶26

Submission on behalf of appellant:-

¶27

Learned counsel for the appellant without touching the merits of the judgment has confined his argument towards the quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant and submitted that during trial and post-

¶28

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.244 of 2005

¶29

3

¶30

2026:JHHC:16560

¶31

conviction, the appellant has remained in custody for 6 years, 2 months and 23 days. Considering the nature of offence committed by the appellant, he has sufficiently been punished for his guilt. The occurrence is of the year 1993 and more than three decades has been elapsed. The appellant is aged about 60 years, therefore, the appellant has sufficiently been punished for his guilt and again sending the appellant to jail custody for remaining period of sentence would not meet the ends of justice and disproportionate to the offence committed by him. Hence, the sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the imprisonment already undergone by him.

¶32

Submission on behalf of State:-

¶33

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has defended the judgment of learned trial court on merits. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, he has submitted that this case is stale one of the year 1993 and the appellant has sustained custody of 6 years, 2 months and 23 days, hence, appropriate order may be passed in the ends of justice.

¶34

Analysis, Reasons and Decision:-

¶35

10.I have gone through the impugned judgment and order along with the record of the case in the light of rival contentions of the learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶36

11.It appears that altogether 13 witnesses were examined by the prosecution to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused persons. Out of them, P.W.6, Narendra Singh , P.W.10, Gurmit

¶37

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.244 of 2005

¶38

4

¶39

2026:JHHC:16560 Singh, P.W.12, Gopal Chandra Singh and P.W.13, Vinay Prasad have been declared hostile while P.W.3, Kavita Kumari, P.W.4-Ram Bilash Shah, P.W.7- Mohan Lal Yadav, P.W.8-Shyam Bihari Jaiswal and P.W.9-Radhika Devi are the hearsay witnesses. Since, the appellant has been acquitted from the charge for the commission of murder, hence, evidence of P.W.11, Dr. Lallan Chaudhary , who has conducted the post-mortem of the deceased is not required to be examined in this appeal.

¶40

The star witness of this case is the informant, Rajendra Shah (P.W.5) . According to him, on 20.05.1993 at about 5:54 pm, while he was going to Sakchi Market, he met with his elder brother, Surajmal Sao (since deceased) near a betel shop. In the meantime, accused Ravi Chourasia along with others came on motorcycles and scooter and kidnapped his brother on the point of pistol. After sometime, this witness came to know about the death of his brother by shot fire near Janta College. He went at the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of his brother soaked in blood. He has proved his signature on fardbayan marked Ext.1.

¶41

In his cross-examination, there is inconsistent in the statement of this witness as he disclosed that his statement was recorded by the police at 8:30 pm in the night while as per fardbayan, it was recorded at 6:00 pm.

¶42

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.244 of 2005

¶43

5

¶44

2026:JHHC:16560

¶45

P.W.1-Rajesh Saw has claimed to be an eye-witness of the

¶46

occurrence and has deposed that on 20.05.1993 at about 5:30 pm, while he was returning from Bhuiandih Maila Tanki and as he reached at turning of Janta College at Baridih, Sakchi, he saw Ravi Chourasia and others, whose name, he did not know, were taking Surajmal Sahu on his motorcycle. A scooter was also there on which accused Kedar Sao and Manoj Singh were sitting. Thereafter, he proceeded towards his house, then he met the informant, Rajendar Sao at Kashidih More No.1, New Kalimati Road and narrated the occurrence to the informant. Thereafter, the informant told this witness that his brother has been kidnapped with a purpose to getting his life. This witness along with informant went to search the deceased but later on he knew about shot dead of the deceased. This witness identifies the accused persons in the court.

¶47

In cross-examination, this witness admits that the informant is his relative and he met with the informant at about 5:45 pm at Kalimati Road No.1.

¶48

P.W.2-Vishwanath Prasad Sahu has also claimed to be an eye-witness of the occurrence and has deposed that on 20.05.1993 at about 5:30 pm, when he was on his auto at Kashidih near Kalimati Road, he saw three persons boarding on a motorcycle and a scooter upon which two persons were riding. The vehicles were driven rashly and saw Ravi Chaurasia and the deceased were riding on a motorcycle. Accused, Kedar Sao and Manoj Singh were riding upon a scooter. In the

¶49

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.244 of 2005

¶50

6

¶51

2026:JHHC:16560 way, this witness met with the informant, who told him that his brother has been kidnapped by accused Ravi Chaurasia and others. Subsequently, this witness came to know that the deceased has been shot dead near Janta College.

¶52

In cross-examination, he has accepted that he is the relative

¶53

of the informant.

¶54

12.In view of the aforesaid discussion and reasons, I find that there is no error in the judgment and order of conviction of the appellant. Hence, the conviction for the offence under section 364/34 of IPC is upheld.

¶55

13.So far as the sentence of the appellant is concerned, it appears that the occurrence is of the year 1993 and since then, more than three decades have elapsed and the appellant has suffered long agony of the trial and the appellant has remained in custody for about 6 years, 2 months and 23 days out of 7 years of the total period of imprisonment as awarded to the appellant, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellant again in jail for sustaining the rest of the imprisonment. Hence, it appears expedient, in the ends of justice to modify/alter the sentence of the appellant.

¶56

14.Accordingly, the sentence of the appellant is modified to the extent of period already undergone by the appellant i.e. about 6 years, 2 months and 23 days as awarded to the appellant.

¶57