ANIL SINGH ALIAS ANIL KUMAR SINGH And ANR. vs STATE OF JHARKHAND

2026:JHHC:32763

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKH AND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1498 of 2005
[Against judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
30.11.2005/02.12.2005 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge,
Jamshedpur in S.C. No.30 of 2004]
---------

1. Anil Singh @ Anil Kumar Singh
2. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu Singh
Both are sons of Prabhakar Singh, Resident of Panchawati Road, Baridih,
Police Station-Sidhgora, Town-Jamshedpur, District-Singhbhum(East)

…… Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand …. Respondent
----------
For the Appellants : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Souma Ranjan Mukherjee, Advocate
Mr. Kaushik Chakraborty, Advocate
---------
PRESENT
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
-----------
CAV On 18/09/2026 Pronounced On 06/11/2026

1. Heard Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellants and
learned A.P.P. assisted with Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the
informant.
2. Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 30.11.2005/02.12.2005 passed by learned
st
1 Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in S.C. No.30 of 2004,
whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been held guilty for the
offence under sections 326 and 307 of IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act
Page 1 of 14
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1498 of 2005

2026:JHHC:32763

and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. 5 years for the offence under
each section 307 and 326 of IPC and R.I. for 3 years for the offence
under section 27 of Arms Act. All the sentences were directed to run
concurrently. However, the appellants have been acquitted from the
charge under sections 387/120B of IPC.
Factual Matrix:-
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 18.03.2000 at about
7:45 am, the informant-cum-injured proceeded on his scooter to auction
yard but before going to auction yard, he reached at Mahavir temple
situated near railway station over bridge, Jamshedpur for offering puja
and just after offering puja , he moved towards his scooter, the accused
Anil Singh and his brother, Ajay Singh reached there on a motorcycle
bearing Reg. No.BET-8061 and opened six rounds fire on the
informant, Raj Kumar Singh and he sustained three bullet injuries on his
wrist and left shoulder. It is further alleged that other two persons
having in possession of revolver were present there. Thereafter, all the
miscreants managed to escape on their motorcycle. All the people
present there and passerby have witnessed the incident. He was taken to
T.M.H for treatment. The fardebayan was recorded by S.I. Arvind
Kumar in T.M.H. on 18.03.2000 at 10.30 am in presence of Gopal
Singh, Ramchandra Singh, Pappu Singh and Ravi Singh. It is alleged
that Anil Singh and others were demanding rangadari tax and in
presence of the aforesaid, they have committed the said crime.
Page 2 of 14
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1498 of 2005

2026:JHHC:32763

4. On the basis of the above fardbeyan of the informant, Jugasalai
(Bagbera) P.S. Case No.33 of 2000 was registered against the accused
persons for the offence under sections 326, 307, 387/34 of IPC and
under section 27 of Arms Act.
5. The charge of investigated was given to S.I. Arvind Kumar to
investigate this case and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet
was submitted against the accused persons and after taking cognizance,
the case was committed to the court of Sessions where S.T. No.30 of
2004 was registered.
6. The accused persons have denied the charges leveled against them and
claimed to be tried.
7. In course of trial, altogether 8 witnesses were examined by the
prosecution, namely:-
P.W.1 -Pappu Singh
P.W.2 -Raju Singh
P.W.3 -Dr. S Rawat
P.W.4- Gopal Singh
P.W.5 -Raj Kumar Singh (injured)
P.W.6 -Dhananjay Kr. Tiwari
P.W.7- Ram Babu Tiwari
P.W.8 -S.I. Arvind Kumar (I.O.)
8. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, the following documentary
evidences have been adduced by the prosecution.
Page 3 of 14
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1498 of 2005

2026:JHHC:32763

Ext.1 -Signature of Pappu Singh on fardbeyan
Ext.1/1 -Signature of Raju Singh on fardbeyan
Ext.1/2- Signature of Gopal Singh on fardbeyan
Ext.1/3- Signature of Raj Kumar Singh (victim) on fardbeyan
Ext.2 -Injury Report
Ext.3 -Signature of Ram Babu Tiwari on seizure list
Ext.4- Fardbeyan
Ext.1/4 -Signature of Officer-in-charge on FIR
Ext.5 to 5/1 -Seizure lists of blood stained shirt and Rajdoot
motorcycle bearing No.BET-8061
9. On the other hand, one defence witness, namely, Bijay Kumar Singh
has been examined as D.W.1 by the defence.
10. Apart from oral testimony of defence witness, three documentary
evidences have been adduced by the defence i.e.
Ext.A -Certified copy of order-sheet of G.R. Case No.495 of
2000 dated 23.03.2000
Ext.A/1 -Certified copy of order sheet of G.R. Case No.495
of 2000 dated 01.04.2000
Ext.B -Certified copy of confession of Sanjay Singh in G.R.
Case No.495 of 2000.
11. Learned trial court, after scrutinizing the evidence available on record,
held the appellants guilty for the aforesaid offences and sentenced them
as stated above, which has been assailed in this appeal.
Page 4 of 14
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1498 of 2005

2026:JHHC:32763

Submission on behalf of appellants:-
12. Learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously argued that the
motive behind the occurrence is of rangdari , which was demanded by
the accused persons from the informant, but nothing has been brought
on record to substantiate the allegation as alleged by the informant.
Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that there are
many contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of the informant
and other witnesses. It is further submitted that P.W.6 and P.W.7 are
hearsay witness and they turned hostile during trial while other
witnesses P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 are also interested and hearsay
witnesses of this case and came to know about the incident from the
informant-cum-injured during recording of his fardbeyan at Hospital. It
is further submitted that two constables, who were on duty near the
place of occurrence, have also not been examined in this case , which
caused prejudiced to the defence. Learned counsel for the appellants has
further submitted that the blood-stained articles, which were recovered
from the place of occurrence, have not been sent for chemical
examination nor produced before the court. Even, no empty bullets and
pellets were recovered from the place of occurrence as has been
admitted by the Investigating Officer of this case in his cross-
examination. Learned trial court has miserably failed to properly
appreciate the evidence available on record and wrongly held guilty the
appellant for the aforesaid offence. Therefore, the impugned judgment
Page 5 of 14
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1498 of 2005

2026:JHHC:32763

and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants is liable to be set
aside, allowing this appeal.
Submission on behalf of the State:-
13. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf
of the appellants and has submitted that learned trial court has very
wisely and aptly considered the oral as well as documentary evidence
available on record and arrived at right conclusion. Therefore, there is
no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order of
conviction and sentence of the appellants calling for any interference in
this appeal, which is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed.
Analysis, Reasons and Decision:-
14. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned
judgment and order in the light of the contentions raised on behalf of
both side.
15. The only point for determination in this appeal is “ as to whether the
impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the
appellants passed by learned trial court suffers from any error of
law calling for any interference in this appeal? ”
16. Before adjudicating the above point, it is necessary to take brief resume
of oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution to
substantiate the charges leveled against the appellants.
The most important witness of this case is the informant-
cum-injured Raj Kumar Singh , who has been examined as P.W.5 .
Page 6 of 14
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1498 of 2005

2026:JHHC:32763

According to his evidence, the occurrence is of 18.03.2000 at about 8:05
am, when he moved towards his scooter after offering puja near
Mahavir Mandir, then Anil Singh, Ajay Singh and other unknown
person came there on two motorcycles and opened fire at him six rounds
as a result of which he sustained three bullets injuries on his wrist and
right shoulder. He further states that other accused persons fled away
from there firing in the air. Thereafter, he was taken to T.M.H. for
treatment. He further states that the accused Anil Singh was demanding
Rs.1 lakh from him as rangadari .
In his cross-examination, he admits that he came to know
about Sanjay Singh from the police officer after the incident. However,
he was known to Anil Singh and Ajay Singh for 15 days before the
incident when they came to his house and threatened for not doing work
in TISCO, if he would not pay one lakh rupee as rangadari to them and
also threatened for dire consequences. In between 15 days, they again
demanded the money on phone calls twice but he did not inform the
said incident to anyone. He further admits that on the date of
occurrence, he was near Hanuman temple and there was no shop in the
east and west side but he again said that there was a shop beside the
temple and shown his ignorance about the directions. He further admits
that there were 20-25 shops near the place of occurrence and he stopped
his scooter in front of the Mahavir Mandir and he prayed to Hanuman Ji
and as he was about to start the scooter, the assailants came from his
Page 7 of 14
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1498 of 2005

2026:JHHC:32763

behind and stopped their motorcycles in front of him and at a distance
of 6 ft they opened fire at him three rounds, which hit his left shoulder
and wrist. He further admits that only Anil Singh has opened fire at him.
He further admits that during treatment, S.P., Jamshedpur was present at
T.M.H. and his fardbeyan was recorded by Inspector and in fardbeyan ,
he has disclosed the name of two persons and he did not know about
other two persons. He further admits that after 5-6 days, he was
discharged from the hospital. During inquiry, he has disclosed the name
of accused persons before S.P., Jamshedpur. He has denied the
suggestion of defence that Anil Singh was not in Jamshedpur. It is not
true that due to business rivalry, he has falsely implicated the accused
persons in this case.
P.W.1-Pappu Singh is a hearsay witness from his brother,
who is the informant of this case. He has received the information about
the incident of firing at his brother, Raj Kumar Singh on phone.
Thereafter, he went to T.M. Hospital and saw his brother sustaining
firearm injury and the police was recording his fardbeyan . He further
states that Anil Singh and Ajay Singh always came to his house and
demanded rangadari from his brother and also used to threaten for dire
consequence. He has put his signature on fardbeyan marked Ext.1.
There is nothing in his cross-examination to rebut the above
testimony.
Page 8 of 14
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1498 of 2005

2026:JHHC:32763

P.W.2.Raju Singh is also a hearsay witness and he has also
reiterated the same as alleged in the FIR and there is nothing in his
cross-examination.
P.W.3-Dr. S. Rawat has examined the informant-cum-
injured, Raj Kumar Singh (P.W.5) and found following injuries:-
There were two wounds of bullets over exterior aspect of
upper fore left arm. There was cutting wound of enter over the ulnar
border of left hand distal to the wrist. Patient was fully conscious and
clinically. There was neurovascular deficit. Patient had also a lacerated
wound 3” x 2” over the scalp with occipital region. X-ray showed two
radiopaque shadows in the region of left shoulder and upper third left
arm with comminuted fracture of left shoulder. There was another
radiopaque shadow in the region left wrist. After surgical exploration,
three radiopaque shadows were found to be that of bullets.
He has opined injuries to be grievous in nature and proved
the injury report as Ext.2.
P.W.4-Gopal Singh is the hearsay witness from his brother,
who is the informant of this case. He has reiterated the same prosecution
story as alleged in the FIR.
P.W.6-Dhananjay Kr. Tiwari and P.W.7-Ram Babu
Tiwari are hearsay witnesses and they have been declared hostile by the
prosecution.
Page 9 of 14
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1498 of 2005

2026:JHHC:32763

P.W.8-S.I. Arvind Kumar is the Investigating Officer of
this case and he was posted as Officer-in-Charge of Bagbera Police
Station on the date of occurrence. He received information about firing
upon someone through telephonic call. Thereafter, entering into general
diary, he visited the place of occurrence for verifying the incident,
which is near the railway bridge. He knew that the injured was already
sent to T.M.H, Jamshedpur for treatment thereafter, he went to T.M.H.
and recorded the fardbeyan of the injured, Raj Kumar Singh(P.W.5)
which is in his writing and signature marked as Ext.4. He sent
fardbeyan for registration of formal FIR and he identified the signature
of Officer-in-Charge, Bishundeo Singh marked as Ext.1/4. He has
seized the shirt of the injured and prepared the seizure list and proved
his signature marked Ext.5 and other two independent witnesses have
also put their signature on the seizure list. He has visited the place of
occurrence and inspected, which is a kaccha road located in front of the
Bajrangbali temple near the railway over-bridge under the jurisdiction
of the Bagbera police station. He further states that the vegetable market
and paani tanki is to the north side of the place of occurrence, in south,
there was a temple of Bajarangbali, in east at the distance of 15 gaj, the
railway bridge is situated and in west at a distance of 150 gaj, there was
a patrol pump. He has found the scooter and some blood stained at the
place of occurrence and the scooter was seized. He recorded the re-
statement of the witnesses Gopal Singh, Pappu Singh, Ramchandra
Page 10 of 14
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1498 of 2005

2026:JHHC:32763

Singh, Raju Singh, Rambabu Tiwari, Dhananjay Tiwari, Kulwant
Singh. He has seized the motorcycle and prepared the seizure list and
proved his signature marked Ext.5/1. After finding sufficient evidence
against the accused persons, he submitted charge-sheet against them. He
has also arrested Prabhakr Singh and Ajay Singh.
In his cross-examination, he admits that he came to know
about the motive behind the occurrence is rangadari but he has not
investigated on this point. He further admits that he has not recovered
pellets and bullets from the place of occurrence. He has received the
injury report. He has not recorded the statement of Amandeep Singh,
who brought the injured to the hospital. He further admits that he has
not sent the blood-stained shirt for chemical examination. He further
admits that accused Prabhakar Singh is the owner of the motorcycle but
he has not found any evidence against the said Prabhakar Singh. He has
denied the suggestion of defence that an ante-dated FIR was lodged by
the informant to falsely implicate the accused persons.
17. On the other hand, the defence witness Bijay Kumar Singh , who has
been examined as D.W.1 , has stated that Sanjay Singh is his elder
brother, who was arrested from his house on 28.03.2000. He further
states that his elder brother was firstly taken to Sidhgora police Station
and thereafter MGM police Station and then Bagbera police station. On
29.03.2000, he went to Sidhgora police station but he came to know that
his brother has been taken to Bagbeda police station. Thereafter, he
Page 11 of 14
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1498 of 2005

2026:JHHC:32763

went to Bagbeda hospital where the police threatened him to initiate
legal action regarding the motorcycle, if he refused to give the statement
as per their instructions and kept the key of motorcycle. He has denied
the suggestion of prosecution that the said motorcycle was used in the
said incident.
18. In the case of Balu Sudam Khalde and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra
reported in (2023) 13 SCC 365 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held at
para 26 as under:
“26.When the evidence of an injured eyewitness is to be
appreciated, the undernoted legal principles enunciated by
the courts are required to be kept in mind:
26.1. The presence of an injured eyewitness at the time and
place of the occurrence can not be doubted unless there are
material contradictions in his depiction.
26.2. Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it
must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the
real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.
26.3. The evidence of injured witness had greater evidentiary
value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements
are not to be discarded lightly.
26.4.The evidence of inured witness cannot be doubted on
account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor
contradictions.
26.5. If there be any exaggeration or immaterial
embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then
such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be
discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole
evidence.
Page 12 of 14
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1498 of 2005

2026:JHHC:32763

26.6. The broad substratum of the prosecution version must
be taken into consideration and discrepancies which
normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time
should be discarded.”
19. Now, I have to proceed with evaluation of evidence in relation to the
charges leveled against the appellants keeping in mind the aforesaid
principle of law propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court. It is admitted
fact that the informant-cum-injured has specifically taken the name of
the present appellants showing their involvement in the alleged offence
of firing at him and stated that on the date of the occurrence, while he
was about to start his scooter after offering puja at Mahabir Mandir, the
present appellants along with others came from his behind on two
motorcycles and opened fire six rounds at him with intention to kill him
but while defending himself, he sustained three gunshots wounds to his
wrist and shoulder. Thereafter, he was brought to hospital where he has
specifically taken the name of appellants while recording his fardbayan.
It further appears that the injuries sustained by the informant-cum-
injured are opined by the doctor (P.W.3) to be grievous in nature caused
by bullets. It further appears that there is positive, clear, cogent and
reliable evidence against the appellants and their direct involvement in
the alleged offence and the same fact has been corroborated by the other
witnesses, including the injured-cum-informant, who is consistent on his
statement. Therefore, non-investigation by the Investigating Officer on
the point of motive behind the occurrence i.e. rangadari does not affect
Page 13 of 14
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1498 of 2005

2026:JHHC:32763

the prosecution case because the testimony of the injured witness (P.W.
5) is entirely clear and cogent.
20. In view of the aforesaid discussion and reasons, I do not find any
illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order for taking a
different view. It appears that learned trial court has very wisely and
aptly considered the overall aspects of the case and arrived at right
conclusion about guilt of the appellants. Hence, I concur with the
findings recorded by the learned trial court and do not find any merits in
this appeal. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed .
21. The appellants are on bail, thus their bail bonds are cancelled and the
appellants are directed to surrender before the concerned trial court
within two months from the date of the judgment to suffer the sentence
awarded to them, failing which, learned trial court shall take all coercive
steps for taking into custody and sending them to jail for sustaining the
sentence awarded to them.
22. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly.
23. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be sent back
to the concerned trial court for information and needful.

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated:-06 /11 /2026
Pappu /-N.A.F.R.
Uploaded on 06 /11/2026
Page 14 of 14
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1498 of 2005