SUKHRAM LAGURI vs STATE OF JHARKHAND
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
2026:JHHC:32721
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 704 of 2009
[ Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
31.03.2009 and 01.04.2009 respectively, passed by learned Additional
District & Sessions Judge-II, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial Case No. 216
of 2005 ]
--------
Sukhram Laguri, son of Late Bishnu Laguri, resident of Village-
Sarbil, P.O.-Nowamundi, P.S.-Nowamundi, District-Singhbhum West
(Jharkhand)
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand …… Respondent
-----
P R E S E N T
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
--------
For the Appellant : Mr. Aniket Jaiswal, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P.
--------
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on 02.09.2026 Pronounced on 06/11/2026
1. I have heard the arguments of Mr. Aniket Jaiswal, learned
counsel for the appellant and Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned A.P.P.
for the State.
2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and
order of conviction and sentence dated 31.03.2009 and 01.04.2009
respectively, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-II,
Chaibasa in Sessions Trial Case No. 216 of 2005, whereby and
whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offences under
Sections 435, 440, 225, 148 & 353 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for three years along with fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence
under Section 435 of the I.P.C.; R.I. for two years along with fine of
Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 440 of the I.P.C.; R.I. for one
year for the offence under Section 148 of the I.P.C.; R.I. for one year
2026:JHHC:32721
for the offence under Section 353 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for one year
along with fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 225 of the
I.P.C. with default stipulations. All the sentences were directed to run
concurrently.
Factual Matrix
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal as per fardbeyan of
A.S.I. Ram Nath Ram, recorded by S.I. Vijay Shankar Prasad at
Noamundi Tisco Hospital on 20.10.2004, is that on the above date, at
about 03:00 P.M., while A.S.I. Ram Nath Ram was on duty at Police
Station, Noamundi, three persons riding on a motorcycle came and
informed him that an accident has taken place in front of petrol pump,
wherein two persons have been lying injured. The informant along with
some police force went towards the place of occurrence and saw a boy
aged about 20-22 years was tied with pole and Charan Balmuchu @
Charan Laguri along with 40-50 unknown persons were ready to set on
fire to the above boy along with truck No.ORO-2AC-1073, the crowd
members were armed with lathi , danda , rod, bow arrow and stones etc.
The informant and other police officers tried to save the tied up boy-
cum-driver of the truck in the meantime, crowd member assembled
there spread patrol on the informant and Charan Laguri tried to set fire
on his body. The informant tried to escape then mob people chased him
pelting stones due to which he fell down. It is further alleged that
Charan Balmuchu struck with a rod on the head of the informant with
intention to kill him and Sona Ram Laguri struck with iron rod on his
2
2026:JHHC:32721
leg then he fell down and the mob people set fire on the truck. It is
further alleged that Officer-in-charge of Police Station, Noamundi also
arrived there and saved the informant. Fire brigade vehicle also arrived
to extinguish the fire. The informant was brought to Noamundi Tisco
Hospital, where his fardbeyan was recorded. It is further alleged that
one H.M.T. Kohinoor wrist watch of the informant was also snatched
by Sona Ram Laguri.
On the basis of above fardbeyan , Noamundi P.S. Case No. 44 of
2004 dated 20.10.2004, was registered for the offences under Sections
147, 148, 149, 144, 152, 323, 324, 326, 333, 307, 379, 353, 436, 440 &
504 of the I.P.C.
4. The F.I.R. was registered against the named accused Charan
Laguri and Sona Ram Laguri along with 40-50 unknown miscreants.
After conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against
accused persons, namely Sona Ram Laguri and Charan Laguri vide
C.S. No.31/04 dated 25.12.2004 for the offences under Sections 144,
147, 148, 149, 353, 224, 225, 341, 342, 323, 436, 440 & 504 of the
I.P.C., while the investigation against the remaining accused persons
was continued. Learned C.J.M. has taken cognizance against the
accused persons, namely Charan Laguri and Sona Ram Laguri, on
17.01.2005 and committed the case of these two accused persons to the
Court of Sessions on 07.02.2005.
5. Later on, supplementary charge-sheet was submitted against
accused persons, namely Sukhram Laguri and Md. Firoz on 30.07.2005
3
2026:JHHC:32721
whose case was committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated
06.09.2005.
6. After taking cognizance the case was committed to the Court of
Sessions, where Sessions Trial Case No. 216 of 2005 vide order dated
06.09.2005 was registered. The accused persons denied the charges
leveled against them and claimed to be tried.
7. In the course of trial, altogether 07 witnesses were examined by
the prosecution:-
(i) P.W.-1-Constable 493, Brahmeshwar Kumar
(ii) P.W.-2-Constable No.320, Saukat Ali Ansari
(iii) P.W.-3-Constable No.187, Bachcha Jee Singh
(iv) P.W.-4-Francis Xavier Barla
(v) P.W.-5-Ram Nath Ram (informant-cum-injured)
(vi) P.W.-6-Dr. B. Rajendra Pd. Rao
(vii) P.W.-7-Vijay Shankar Prasad
8. Apart from oral testimony following documentary evidence have
also been adduced by prosecution.
(i) Exhibit-1-Signatre of Ram Nath Ram on fardbeyan
(ii) Exhibit-2-Injury report of injured Ram Nath Ram
(iii) Exhibit-3-fardbeyan
(iv) Exhibit-3/1-Endorsement on fardbeyan
(v) Exhibit-4-Formal F.I.R.
9. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been
adduced on behalf of defence.
4
2026:JHHC:32721
10. After conclusion of trial, the appellant was held guilty for the
offences under Sections 435, 440, 225, 148 & 353 of the I.P.C. and
sentenced as stated above which has been assailed in this appeal.
Submissions on behalf of appellant: -
11. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the
learned court below are bad in law as well as on facts and are based on
surmises and conjectures, without proper appreciation of the evidence
on record. It has been contended that although seven witnesses were
examined on behalf of the prosecution, neither the informant, Ram
Nath Ram, who was also the injured and the first person to reach the
place of occurrence, nor the injured himself named the present
appellant as the person responsible for setting fire to his body, thereby
rendering the testimony of the other witnesses doubtful and
uncorroborated. Learned counsel has further submitted that neither the
alleged jerican of petrol nor any other incriminating article was seized
or produced before the court during trial and although the Investigating
Officer stated that petrol cane had been recovered from the appellant,
the same was never produced before the court, which casts serious
doubt on the prosecution case. Learned counsel has also submitted that
the occurrence took place in the backdrop of a child being crushed by a
dumper and the driver of the said dumper being restrained by the crowd
and the incident, even if assumed to be true, occurred due to sudden
provocation without any mens rea on the part of the appellant to
5
2026:JHHC:32721
commit the alleged offences under Sections 435, 440, 225, 148 and 353
of the I.P.C. Hence, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence are unsustainable in the eyes of law and are liable to be set
aside and the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charges levelled
against him , allowing this appeal.
Submissions on behalf of State: -
12. Per contra, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has
opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant and
contended that the learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the oral
as well as documentary evidence available on record. It is submitted
that the testimony of the informant-cum-injured witness, P.W.-5, Ram
Nath Ram is duly corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-6, Dr.
B. Rajendra Prasad Rao and further supported by the evidence of other
prosecution witnesses regarding the occurrence. He has further
submitted that the Investigating Officer, P.W.-7 has also proved the
seizure of petrol cane from the place of occurrence belongs to the
appellant, which supports the prosecution case. It is contended that
minor discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses cannot be a ground to
discard the prosecution case in its entirety. Accordingly, learned A.P.P.
has submitted that the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted and
sentenced the appellant after proper appreciation of the evidence
available on record. Hence, the impugned judgment and order of
conviction and sentence do not warrant any interference by this Court,
as the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
6
2026:JHHC:32721
13. I have gone through the record of the case along with the
impugned judgment in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both
side.
14. The only point for determination in this appeal is “as to whether
the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the
appellant suffers from any serious error of law calling for any
interference in this appeal?”
Analysis, discussions and reasons:-
15. Before imparting my verdict on above point, it is desirable to
take brief resume of ocular testimony of witnesses examined in this
case.
P.W.-1-Constable 493, Brahmeshwar Kumar has stated that on
20.10.2004, he was posted at Jagannathpur, Police Station. He was
commanded to report at Noamundi, where road was blocked by some
miscreants, then he along with other police personnel went to
Noamundi at about 02:30-03:00 P.M. at the place of occurrence. He
came to know from staff members of Noamundi, Police Station that
Jamadar Ram Nath Ram has been assaulted by miscreants by rod and
stick. He also heard that one Gurucharan has assaulted. He also came to
know that a small child was crushed by a dumper, hence, crowd of
people assembled and driver was tied with a pole and they were raising
compensation for death of the child. He further came to know that one
Sukhram was apprehended by police, but crowd people got his release
from custody. Admittedly, this witness is hearsay witness and no
7
2026:JHHC:32721
occurrence has been seen by him.
P.W.-2-Constable No.320, Saukat Ali Ansari was posted at
Noamundi Police Station. According to his evidence, on 19.10.2004, he
along with Officer-in-charge proceeded to Noamundi market in the
morning, where they received information from unknown persons
about the accident caused by a dumper near the petrol pump. He has
further stated that at the place of occurrence, A.S.I., Ram Nath Ram
was present, where Sona Ram Laguri and Charan Laguri were
assaulting him. The dumper was also set on fire. He attempted to
apprehend Sukhram Laguri, but could not succeed and he fled away
taking advantage of crowd. He also noticed injuries to Ram Nath Ram
on head, nose and leg. He was brought to Noamundi Hospital for
treatment.
In his cross-examination, this witness also admits that no one
was arrested from the place of occurrence.
P.W.-3-Constable No.187, Bachcha Jee Singh has also stated
that on 19.10.2004 at about 02:00 P.M., he was returning from another
village along with Officer-in-charge and reached near Noamundi
market and came to know from an unknown person that accident had
taken place. They went there and found that Jamadar Ram Nath Ram
was being assaulted by Sona Ram Laguri and Charan Laguri by iron
rod. He attempted to apprehend the miscreants, but they fled away due
to crowd. He also noticed injuries to Jamadar Ram Nath Ram on head,
nose and knees. He was brought to Noamundi Hospital for treatment.
8
2026:JHHC:32721
The offending truck was also set on fire.
In his cross-examination, he admits that he was acquainted with
Sona Ram Laguri and Charan Laguri prior to the occurrence who were
frequently seen in the market.
P.W.-4-Francis Xavier Barla was posted as Officer-in-charge at
Noamundi, Police Station. According to his evidence, on 19.10.2004,
he along with other police personnel, had gone for investigation of a
case and while returning along with other police personnel then one
unknown person disclosed that a tanker has met an accident and one
person has died, mob has surrounded and driver of the truck is going to
be set on ablaze. When he reached at the place of occurrence, A.S.I.,
Ram Nath Ram was assaulted by members of crowd and driver of
dumper was tied with telephone pole. The driver was rescued by police
force and A.S.I., Ram Nath Ram was sent to hospital, where he
recorded his fardbeyan, who disclosed that Sona Ram Laguri and
Charan Laguri were attempting to set him on fire by sprinkling petrol
and also assaulted by iron rod. Both named accused persons managed
to flee away taking advantage of crowd. One person, namely Sukhram
Laguri was also apprehended by police, but members of the mob
liberated him forcibly. He has identified the accused persons beyond
the mob.
P.W.-5-A.S.I., Ram Nath Ram is the informant-cum-eye-
witness of the occurrence. According to his evidence, he received
information about accident meted at Noamundi market caused by a
9
2026:JHHC:32721
dumper and also came to know that driver of the dumper has been tied
up in a pole and crowd member are attempting to set him on ablaze by
sprinkling petrol. He along with police personnel went there, but the
crowd member also rushed towards him sprinkling petrol with a view
to set on fire then he managed to flee away due to fear some miscreants
chased him and assaulted by iron rod. He identified Sona Ram Laguri
and Charan Laguri were assaulting him by iron rod due to which he
received injuries on his head and knee became unconscious. He was
brought to Tisco Hospital for treatment. He stated that what happened
thereafter, he does not know his fardbeyan was recorded by S.I., V.S.
Prasad and he proved his signature marked as Exhibit-1 .
In his cross-examination, he admits that both the accused Sona
Ram Laguri and Charan Laguri were having an ordinary iron rod about
one inch diameter, but in his fardbeyan, he has stated that there was
sharp iron rod in the hands of accused persons. He also admits that in
his fardbeyan, it is not mentioned that both the accused were armed
with iron rod. He further admits that the iron rod was not seized from
the accused persons.
P.W.-6-Dr. B. Rajendra Pd. Rao has examined Ram Nath Ram
on 19.10.2004 and found the following injuries:-
(1) Lacerated wound linear irregular on shape 1½" x ¼" x
scalp deep. On the right side fronto parietal area ¾" in right to mid line
oozing no bone injury noted.
(2) Lacerated wound small linear ½" x ¼" x 1/8" with
10
2026:JHHC:32721
swelling on front of left tibia at about middle oozing no bone injury.
(3) Swelling with haemotoma upper portion of nose and right
side of face maxillary area with bluish discoloration. Swelling is
diffused of size 2.5" x 2" subjected fracture of nasal bone.
X-ray shows fracture of right nasal bone without displacement.
Opinion:- Injury Nos.1 & 2 are simple in nature. Injury No.3 is
grievous in nature, caused by hard blunt object or weapon.
He has proved the injury report in his handwriting and signature,
which is marked as Exhibit-2 .
In his cross-examination, he has admitted that X-ray plate of the
injured and its report has not been enclosed.
P.W.-7-S.I., Vijay Shankar Prasad is the Investigating Officer
of this case. He has proved the fardbeyan of the informant in his
handwriting and signed by A.S.I., Ram Nath Ram marked as Exhibit-3
and formal F.I.R. Exhibit-4 . He recorded restatement of informant and
interrogated with other witnesses obtaining medical report of the
injured-cum-informant and finding sufficient evidence submitted
charge-sheet. He has arrested Mohammad Firoz.
In his cross-examination, this witness fairly admits that from the
place of occurrence cane of petrol was seized which belong to Sukhram
Laguri. The cane was about 5-10 litre capacity nothing else was seized
in this case.
16. Upon careful scrutiny of the evidence available on record, it
appears that P.W.-1, Constable Brahmeshwar Kumar is not an eye-
11
2026:JHHC:32721
witness to the occurrence and his testimony is based on information
received from other police personnel. P.W.-2, Saukat Ali Ansari, and
P.W.-3, Bachcha Jee Singh have deposed regarding the assault upon the
informant by Sona Ram Laguri and Charan Laguri alone and the setting
of the dumper on fire. P.W.-4, Francis Xavier Barla, the then Officer-in-
Charge of Noamundi Police Station, has also supported the prosecution
case regarding the occurrence and rescue of the driver. Even P.W.-5, the
informant, Ram Nath Ram has stated that Sona Ram Laguri and Charan
Laguri were assaulted him by iron rod. No witness has taken the name
of present appellant in assaulting the injured or setting the fire. No
specific overt act has been attributed against the present appellant either
in assaulting or in setting fire or otherwise.
17. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the
prosecution is required to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt
and that suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of
legal proof. In the present case, although the evidence indicates that an
incident of violence took place, the prosecution was required to
establish the specific involvement of the appellant in the commission of
the offences for which he has been convicted. Mere presence in a
crowd or association with other persons involved in the occurrence
cannot, by itself, constitute sufficient ground for recording a conviction
unless the requisite ingredients of offences and the appellant's
participation are established in accordance with law.
18. In view of the aforesaid discussion and assessment of the
12
2026:JHHC:32721
evidence, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed
to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
19. In result, I am constrained to hold that the impugned judgment
and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant suffers from
serious error of law and cannot be justified under the facts and
circumstances proved by the prosecution. Therefore, impugned
judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant is hereby set
aside and this appeal is allowed .
20. Appellant is on bail, as such he is discharged from the liability
of bail bond and sureties are also discharged.
21. Pending I.A(s), if any, stands disposed of.
22. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record be
sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court
Dated 06/11/2026
Arpit/ N. A. F. R.
Uploaded on 06/11/2026
13