Karu Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

2026:JHHC:20808

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 428 of 2021

¶4

-----

¶5

[ Against the judgment of conviction dated 31.08.2021 and order of sentence, dated 02.09.2021 passed in Sessions Trial No. 53 of 2021arising out of Domchanch P.S. Case No. 55 of 2020, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Koderma]

¶6

1.Karu Yadav, aged about 43 years, S/o Late Kali Yadav, R/o VillageDurodih, P.O. + P.S.- Domchanch, Dist.-Koderma

¶7

2.Upendra Rana @ Upendra Kumar Sharma, aged about 32 Years, S/o Ashok Sharma, R/o Village Durodih, P.O. + P.S.- Domchanch, Dist. - Koderma

¶8

--- --- Appellants

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent

¶11

For the Appellants : Mrs. Rashmi Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P.

¶12

PRESENT

¶13

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶14

J U D G M E N T

¶15

By Court

¶16

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Spl.P.P. representing the State.

¶17

2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 31.08.2021 and order of sentence, dated 02.09.2021 passed in Sessions Trial No. 53 of 2021arising out of Domchanch P.S. Case No. 55 of 2020, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Koderma, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 365/34 of the IPC and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years with a fine of Rs. 2000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they have been further directed to undergo S.I. for 3 months each.

¶18

3 . The criminal law has been put into motion on the fardbeyan by the informant- Gopal Kumar Kashera recorded by the S.I. Kamla Kumar Rai of Domchanch Police Station on 24.05.2020 at 01.20 hours.

¶19

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 428 of 2021

¶20

1

¶21

2026:JHHC:20808

¶22

In the said fardbeyanm the informant has stated that when he went to take some household goods i.e., biscuits etc. from a betel shop of Bindu situated at village Mahtadih at about 07.15 P.M. on 23.05.2020, at that moment the accused persons Karu Yadav, Upendra Rana and Sagar Kumar , all of village Durodih, P.S. Domchanch, Koderma came there with two motorcycles and stopped near the informant. Accused Karu Yadav with the help of other accomplices forced the informant to sit on the motorcycle and took him to Niru Pahari forest area where they assaulted him brutally by lathi. The accused Karu Yadav scolded him by saying that why he had beaten his son and threatened him of dire consequences. Karu Yadav instigaged the co-accused Upendra Rana to throw stone upon the informant. However, as soon as Upendra Rana was about to throw a big stone on the head of the informant, Police arrived there and on seeing the police party, Upendra Rana and Sagar Kumar managed to flee away but during the moment police chased the accused Karu Yadav and captured him.

¶23

4. On the basis of the above fardbeyan, the case was registered being Domchanch P.S. Case No. 55 of 2020 dated 24.05.2020 under Sections 364/34 of the IPC against the accused persons.

¶24

5. Cognizance of the offence under Sections 364/34 of the IPC was taken against the accused on 20.07.2020.

¶25

6. On appearance of the accused, the charge for the offence under Sections 364/34 of the IPC was framed on 07.07.2021 and the content of charge was explained to the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶26

7. To substantiate the prosecution story altogether nine prosecution witnesses have been examined. Their brief statements are as follows:

¶27

I. P.W.1(Manju Devi) – She is the mother of the informant. She has been declared hostile by the prosecution.

¶28

II. P.W.2(Khadakdhari Yadav) – This witness has also been declared hostile as he has shown his ignorance about the

¶29

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 428 of 2021

2

2026:JHHC:20808

alleged occurrence.

III. P.W.3(Anil Kasera) – He is the father of the informant. He has deposed that on the alleged date of occurrence he was present at his house when some persons came thereand forcibly abducted his son. However, he could not say as to where his son was taken by those persons. Then he went to the police station for giving information and later on got the news about recovery of his son. This witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution on the point of denial of the further contents of the alleged occurrence. In his cross examination he has stated that the occurrence did not happen in is presence. He has further stated that both the accused are co-villagers.

¶34

IV. P.W.4(Dr. Arun Kumar) – He is the medical officer, who has examined the injured informant and found the following injuries on his person:

¶35

i. A swelling 1” x1” on left fore arm

¶36

ii. A cut injury on lip 1/4" x 1/4" on lower lip.

¶37

The doctor has opined that the injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance. Time of injuries are within 06 hours. In his cross examination he has stated that such type of injury may be caused due to fall on a hard surface.

¶38

V. P.W.5(Gopal Kumar Kasera )- He is the informant of the case. He has deposed in his examination-in-chief that the alleged occurrence had happened on 23.05.2020 at about 07.15 P.M. when he went to the betel shop of Bindu situated at Mahthadih to take some household items like biscuits etc. At that moment, three persons namely Upendra Rana, Karu Yadav and Sagar Kumar came there in motorcycles. They forcibly caught hold of him and started dragging and compelled him to sit on the motorcycle. The informant has further deposed that there was some previous dispute with the accused persons and due to that they took him to

¶39

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 428 of 2021

¶40

3

¶41

2026:JHHC:20808

¶42

Neerupahari forest area and started beating him by danda, fist and slaps. While the accused were beating him, he pleaded to leave him and at that moment, the Police came there. Seeing the police, two miscreants Upendra Rana and Sagar Kumar managed to flee away while Karu Yadav was caught by the police. In his cross examination he has stated that he has simply put his signature on his statement recorded by the Police and he could not say about the contents of the fardbeyan. He has further stated in his cross examination that the accused persons are known to him but he does not know about the profession of the accused persons. He has further stated that he sustained injuries on his hand and back side due to the scuffle with the accused persons and for treatment he was sent to the Referral Hospital, Domchanch. He has also admitted at para 4 of his cross examination that he is a literate person; however, he had not written the fardbeyan rather whatever statement was taken by the Officer Incharge of the Police Station, he has signed on it without reading the content. He has further deposed that he does not know what is the content of the fardbeyan. At para 10 of his cross examination he has admitted the fact that there was no injury mark on his person. However, due to scuffle some minor scratches have occurred for which treatment was going on in the Referral Hospital, Domchanch. After lodging the case police has not recorded his statement. Further the case was lodged due to mistake.

¶43

VI.

¶44

P.W.6(Kamla Kumar Rai)- He is the Investigating Officer of the case. After getting charge of the investigation of the case, he had gone through the fardbeyan of the informant and then recorded restatement of the informant . He sent a requisition for examination of the injury of the informant to the Referral Hospital, Domchanch. He has also stated that

¶45

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 428 of 2021

¶46

4

¶47

2026:JHHC:20808

¶48

the alleged motorcycle used by the accused has been seized from the place of occurrence situated at Neerupahari forest area and seizure list was also prepared to that effect.

¶49

VII. P.W.7 (Sunil Kasera) - He is the uncle of the informant. He has deposed that he has only heard about the occurrence. In his cross examination he has stated that he has simply signed on the plain paper on the instruction of the police at the police station. He has been declared hostile.

¶50

VIII. P.W.8(Arvind Kumar -Chaukidar 3/4) - He is the choukidar of Domchanch police station, who has appeared before the court on behalf of the prosecution with the material exhibits of the case.

¶51

IX. P.W.9 (Anup Kumar @ Anup Kumar Thakur) -He is a seizure witness who has proved his signature on the seizure list. However, he has denied anything relating to the alleged case and showed his ignorance about the informant and the accused persons of this case. He has been declared hostile and in his cross examination he has deposed that the police has taken his signature on a plain paper.

¶52

8. The prosecution has also adduced documentary evidence as under:

¶53

I. Exhibit -1 – Injury report of Gopal Kumar Kasera

¶54

II. Exhibit-1/1- Signature and requisition for injury report of injured Gopal Kumar Kasera.

¶55

III. Exhibit- 2-Signature of informant Gopal Kumar Kasera on fardbeyan

¶56

IV. Exhibit- 3- Seizure list.

¶57

V. Exhibit- 3/2- Signature of witness Sunil Kasera on seizure list.

¶58

VI. Exhibit- 4- Memo of arrest of accused Karu Yadav.

¶59

VII. Ext. 4/1- Signature of witness Sunil Kasera on memo of arrest of accused Karu Yadav

¶60

VIII. Ext. 5- Memo of arrest of accused Upendra Rana @ Upendra Kumar Rana

¶61

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 428 of 2021

¶62

5

¶63

2026:JHHC:20808

¶64

IX. Material Exhibit Ext- I- A motorcycle bearing registration No. JH-12J-6673.

¶65

9. After conducting full-fledged trial, the learned Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid.

¶66

10. Learned counsel for the appellants by referring to the above depositions, has submitted that it is a case of no evidence. The only available witness is the victim, who has denied the incident, even the content of the F.I.R has been denied by him. On the above basis, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the impugned judgment needs interference by this Court.

¶67

11. Learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the informant/ victim was barely aware about the content of the F.I.R. He has denied any kidnapping/ abduction and it has been stated that it is merely a scuffle between the parties. Due to misunderstanding, father has gone to the police station. 13. In view of above statements of the victim, I find no material to sustain the conviction of the appellants. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 31.08.2021 and order of sentence, dated 02.09.2021 passed in Sessions Trial No. 53 of 2021 arising out of Domchanch P.S. Case No. 55 of 2020, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Koderma are quashed and set aside.

¶68

14. The appellants are on bail. Hence, they are discharged from the liability of their bail bond.

¶69

15. The present criminal appeal is allowed.

¶70

16. Let the scanned copy of the trial court record be sent to the concerned court, forthwith.

¶71

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶72

A. Mohanty Jharkhand High Court Dated 14^th July 2026

¶73

Uploaded /_/2026