Pradeep Thakur Alias Pallo Thakur Vs the State of Jharkhand

2026:JHHC:10269

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.41 of 2019

[Against the judgment of conviction dated 18.12.2018 and the order of sentence dated 20.12.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Deoghar in Sessions Trial No.370 of 2012 arising out of Deoghar Town P.S. Case No.226 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No.782 of 2012]

¶5

¶6

Pradeep Thakur @ Pallo Thakur, aged about 66 Years, S/o Upendra Thakur, resident of Village-Bharko, P.O. Bharko, P.S. Amarpur, District-Banka (Bihar) …. …. Appellant(s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand …. …. Respondent(s)

¶9

¶10

PRESENT

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶12

---For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Suraj Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar, A.P.P. ----

¶13

By Court:

¶14

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant(s) and learned counsel for the State.

¶15

2. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction dated 18.12.2018 and the order of sentence dated 20.12.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Deoghar in Sessions Trial No.370 of 2012 arising out of Deoghar Town P.S. Case No.226 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No.782 of 2012, whereby the appellant has been held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years along with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

¶16

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 11.07.2012, when the informant was alone at home, the accused Pradeep Thakur @ Pallo Thakur, who was known to her, came to her house on the pretext of delivering a letter and asked for tea. While she was preparing tea in the kitchen, he entered with a knife and attacked her on the neck, face, eyebrow etc. As she tried to escape, he continued assaulting her. On her alarm, neighbours arrived and took her to Sadar Hospital, Deoghar for treatment.

¶17

2026:JHHC:10269

¶18

4. The motive alleged is that the accused had demanded money from her husband a day earlier, which was refused. Based on these allegations, the present criminal case has put been put into motion by lodging an FIR on 11.07.2012 being Deoghar Town P.S. Case No.226 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No.782 of 2012 under Sections 307/ 450/ 324 & 326 IPC against the appellant.

¶19

5. The police after investigation had filed charge-sheet on 31.07.2012 against the appellant for the offence under Sections 450/ 307/ 324/ 326 of the Indian Penal Code. After taking cognizance, charge has been framed under Section 307 IPC and the case was sent before the court of sessions for trail for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶20

6. To substantiate the allegation, altogether eight witnesses have been examined.

¶21

P.W.-1: Dilip Choudhary is a neighbour of the victim

¶22

P.W.-2: Shalini Jha (the victim)

¶23

P.W.-3: Yogesh Kumar Jha, the husband of the Informant

¶24

P.W.-4: Kanchan Devi

¶25

P.W.-5: Prafullit Kujur-the Investigating Officer

¶26

P.W.-6: Dr. Arun Kumar, who has treated the informant.

¶27

P.W.-7: Pappu Mahtha, who is independent witness.

¶28

P.W.-8: Subodh Ram, who is a formal witness.

¶29

The short statement of the witnesses are as follow:-

¶30

P.W.-1: Dilip Choudhary has deposed in his examination in-

¶31

chief that on 11.07.2012 around 12:00–12:15 p.m., he heard loud cries from Yogesh Jha’s house. On looking from the balcony, he saw the victim coming out of her house, severely injured and covered in blood, shouting for help. The witness rushed downstairs and found that a man, later identified as Pradeep Thakur (also identified as Pradeep Chaudhary), had been caught by the public with bloodstained clothes. The witness then took Shalini to Sadar Hospital, Deoghar, along with another neighbor. The accused present in court was identified by the witness.

¶32

Page | 2

¶33

Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.41 of 2019

¶34

2026:JHHC:10269

¶35

In cross examination: this witness has stated that he did not know the accused earlier and saw him for the first time during the incident, later identifying him in the court. He did not see the accused assaulting the victim but only heard her cries and saw her in an injured, blood stained condition from his balcony. His statement was recorded by the police on the same day after returning from the hospital. He came to know the accused’s name later. He denied giving any false statement or deposing under someone’s influence.

¶36

P.W.-2: Shalini Jha is the injured victim/informant who has deposed that the incident occurred on 11 July 2012 around 11:45 a.m.–12:00 noon at her house. The accused, Pradeep Thakur (a relative of her husband), came to her house on the pretext of delivering a letter and asked for tea. When she went to the kitchen, he attacked her from behind with a knife, causing injuries. She resisted, pushed him, and ran towards the dining hall shouting for help. The accused followed and assaulted her repeatedly, including on her face.

¶37

Hearing her cries, her neighbor raised alarm, upon which the accused tried to flee away but was caught by local people. The victim was taken to Sadar Hospital, Deoghar by neighbors for treatment. Her statement was recorded by the police in the hospital, which she signed. The defense objected to marking the statement as evidence on the ground that it was not in her handwriting.

¶38

In her cross examination she has stated that the victim identified the accused, Pradeep Thakur, in court as the person who attacked her. She also stated that a day before the incident, the accused had demanded money from her husband, and upon refusal, committed the attack. Her statement was recorded in the hospital by a police officer, and she handed over a sealed letter brought by the accused to the police.

¶39

She described her house layout and stated that the accused was known to the family and had visited earlier, with no prior

¶40

Page | 3

¶41

Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.41 of 2019

¶42

2026:JHHC:10269

¶43

dispute. During the incident, she sustained six injuries—one on her back and the rest on her face, causing lasting damage. Blood had fallen in multiple parts of the house. She was not unconscious during the attack.

¶44

She further stated that her statement was recorded again at her house the same day. She denied all defence suggestions that no assault took place, that she falsely implicated the accused, or that her statement was untrue.

¶45

P.W.-3: Yogesh Kumar Jha (husband of the Informant) has deposed that he was in Jamtara when he received information about the incident and reached Deoghar. Upon reaching the hospital, he found that the police had already arrived. His statement was recorded by the police in the hospital around 2:00 P.M., after recording his wife’s statement, and later he was also questioned at his house.

¶46

He has stated that he had informed the police that the accused had demanded money from him but did not specify the amount. He denied giving details about who called him or from which phone. He also clarified that he had not named any person called Deepak in his statement.

¶47

He denied the defence suggestions that the accused never demanded money or that he and his wife had falsely implicated the accused.

¶48

P.W.-4: Kanchan Devi (neighbor of the victim), has fully supported the case. She stated that on 11 July 2012 around 12:00 noon, she heard the victim screaming and saw through her window that a man was repeatedly stabbing her, leaving her covered in blood. She raised alarm, after which neighbors gathered and caught the accused when he came out of the house.

¶49

She identified the accused, Pradeep, in court as the assailant. She, along with neighbor Dilip Chaudhary, took the injured to Sadar Hospital, Deoghar for treatment. In cross-

¶50

Page | 4

¶51

Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.41 of 2019

¶52

2026:JHHC:10269

¶53

examination, she has stated that the victim was discharged from the hospital the same day and that she stayed with her there.

¶54

P.W.-5: Prafullit Kujur- (Investigating Officer) deposed that the investigation was entrusted to him by the then Officer-inCharge, K.K. Sahu. By that time, K.K. Sahu had already recovered the knife used in the assault and prepared the seizure list.

¶55

After taking over the investigation, he recorded the further statement of the victim at Sadar Hospital, Deoghar, and also recorded the statements of Kanchan Devi and Yogesh Jha there. He inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the necessary documents, and recorded statements of other witnesses. On finding the allegation true, he submitted the charge-sheet against the accused, Pradeep Thakur.

¶56

P.W.-6: Dr. Arun Kumar is the doctor, who has treated the informant has deposed that on 25.07.2012 at about 12:30 P.M., while he was on duty in the OPD of Sadar Hospital, Deoghar, an injured woman namely, Shalini Jha was brought before him by another lady for examination. On examination, he found three stab wounds on her body.

¶57

The first injury was on the right side of her back near the shoulder, the second near the left eyebrow, and the third on the left cheek near the ear. All the injuries were caused by a sharpedged weapon. He opined that the injuries were simple in nature and had been inflicted within six hours prior to examination. He further stated that, on the request of the police, he prepared the injury report, which was marked as Exhibit Pw/6-A, and put his signature on it.

¶58

In his cross examination- he has stated that the injury report was prepared later (on 25.07.2012) based on his earlier notes, without re-examining the patient, after receiving a police requisition. The report was delayed as he was awaiting the patient’s progress. He confirmed that the injured left the

¶59

Page | 5

¶60

Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.41 of 2019

¶61

2026:JHHC:10269

¶62

hospital against medical advice and he did not know her personally.

¶63

He denied preparing any false report and clarified that none of the injuries, either individually or collectively, were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

¶64

P.W.-7: Pappu Mahtha , who is independent witness and a seizure list witness, who identified his signature on the seizure list (Exhibit-3/1).

¶65

In his cross examination he has deposed that he has signed on a plain paper on the direction of police. No seizure has been done before him.

¶66

P.W.-8: Subodh Ram , who is a formal witness, produced the seized material before the court, namely, a blood stained knife with a blue handle (Ext-I), bearing a label of Deoghar Town

¶67

P.S. Case No. 226/2012.

¶68

7. Thus, none of the witnesses are eye-witness except the alleged victim, who is P.W.-2.

¶69

8. Referring to the above evidence, learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the judgment of conviction on the following grounds:-

¶70

i. As per the witnesses and the F.I.R., the date of occurrence is 11.07.2012 while the deposition of P.W.-6, who is Doctor, suggest that the victim has been brought before him on 25.07.2012 and he has found three simple injuries and the age of the injury was within six hours.

¶71

ii. The time of crime itself is in doubt.

¶72

iii. Even the deposition of the Investigating Officer suggests that the alleged weapon of crime has not been sent for forensic examination although some red marks has been found there.

¶73

iv. Further, as per the P.W.-4, who claims to be an eye-witness, the entire neighbours has been assembled and the accused has been caught hold at the spot itself but such statement gets falsified from the other witnesses i.e. P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and the victim herself.

¶74

9. Thus, if the evidence of the witnesses have closely scrutinized, then it will be evident that it is nothing but false allegation as the statement given by

¶75

Page | 6

¶76

Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.41 of 2019

¶77

2026:JHHC:10269

¶78

them are totally contradictory in material aspect and further the time of occurrence as deposed by the doctor itself falsify the allegation made by the alleged victim.

¶79

10. Learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of conviction and submitted that there is an eye-witness to the incident but he could not contradict the statement given by the police. Further, there is no forensic examination although the I.O. has stated that the weapon of the crime has been seized and it was having some red mark upon it.

¶80

11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, it appears that P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 are the hearsay witness, P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 are the alleged eye-witness to the incident but their story is not supported by the P.W.-1 and P.W.-2. The time of occurrence got falsified by the evidence of the doctor. Even there is no forensic examination regarding the weapon of crime which has been seized. Although it has been stated that there were so many independent witnesses but none were examined either by the Investigating Officer or has been produced in the Court.

¶81

12. In view of above discussion, this Court finds that the judgment of conviction is not sustainable. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 18.12.2018 and the order of sentence dated 20.12.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Deoghar in Sessions Trial No.370 of 2012 arising out of Deoghar Town P.S. Case No.226 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No.782 of 2012 is, hereby, quashed and set aside.

¶82

13. In the result, the present criminal appeal stands allowed and disposed of. 14. The appellant is on bail and as such he is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds.

¶83

15. Let the Trial Court Records be sent to the court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this judgment.

¶84

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶85

The Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi Dated: 09^th April, 2026 Shahid/NAFR Uploaded on 16.04.2026

¶86

Page | 7

¶87

Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.41 of 2019

Pradeep Thakur Alias Pallo Thakur v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Thakur Alias Pallo Thakur v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chakradhar Bauri Vs the State of Jharkhand

Siprian Topno Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhuktu Hembram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Umesh Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shubham Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Upendra Majhi Vs the State of Jharkhand