Jharkhand High Court
Rishi @ Rishikesh Sharma vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 October, 2023
Author: Navneet Kumar
Bench: Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 50 of 2023
------
Rishi @ Rishikesh Sharma ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
--------
For the Appellant : Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mrs. Manjushri Patra, Advocate
--------
th
Order No. 07 / Dated: 13 October, 2023
I.A. No. 6362 of 2023
Heard Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State assisted by Mrs. Manjushri Patra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the instant Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 6362 of 2023 has been filed on behalf of the appellant with a prayer to enlarge the appellant on bail during the pendency of this criminal appeal which has been preferred against the judgement of conviction dated 20.01.2023 and order of sentence dated 25.01.2023 passed by the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Giridih in S.T. Case No. 75 of 2021, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 307/34, 341/34, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and further imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The appellant has been further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code and has been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently with a further direction that the period spent in custody by the appellant during trial, shall be set off.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that on earlier occasion one Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 894 of Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 50 of 2023 -2- 2023 was filed on behalf of the appellant with the same prayer for the suspension of sentence and to enlarge the appellant on bail in this appeal which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 12.05.2023 by which the prayer of the appellant for suspension of sentence and to release the appellant on bail was rejected.
4. It has further been submitted that on earlier occasion there was a vital omission in the submission advanced on behalf of the appellant that there is major contradiction between the opinions of the doctor with respect to the injuries inflicted upon the injured person particularly P.W.-2, Ranjeet Kumar Swarnkar as evident from the depositions of P.W.-6, Dr. Lav Kush Sinha, P.W.-7, Dr. Ashok Kumar and C.W.-1, Dr. Ravi Maharshi and therefore, again the occasion arose by filing fresh I.A. No. 6362 of 2023 to make a prayer for the suspension of sentence during the pendency of this appeal and to enlarge the appellant on bail on the aforesaid grounds.
5. It has been pointed out that Dr. Ravi Maharshi has been examined at the instance of the learned Trial Court as C.W.-1 and admitted he is the first doctor who had examined the injured Ranjeet Kumar Swarnkar and he has categorically found on the basis of the medical examination report of the higher centre i.e. from Fortis Kolkata that the injury inflicted upon the injured was simple in nature which is based on the E.N.T. opinion taken from Fortis Kolkata and there was a mild conductive hearing loss in the left ear as examined by Fortis Kolkata on 24.01.2020.
6. Further it has been pointed out that the alleged occurrence has taken place on 17.01.2020 and on the same day there was an occasion for the doctor Dr. Ravi Maharshi (C.W.-1) to medially examine the injured Ranjeet Kumar Swarnkar in a very elaborate manner and he was referred to the higher centre i.e. Fortis Kolkata and on the basis of the supplementary injury report received from Fortis Kolkata the opinion has been given and in this view of the matter, it has been further submitted that there was no occasion for the injured Ranjeet Kumar Swarnkar to get himself medically examined suo-motu at his own instance by a medical board constituted at Sadar Hospital Giridih and the two doctors of the said board i.e. Dr. Lav Kush Sinha and P.W.-6 and Dr. Ashok Kumar as P.W.-7 have been examined and as per their depositions it is found that they have medically examined the Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 50 of 2023 -3- injured Ranjeet Kumar Swarnkar on 16.03.2020 i.e. after a lapse of about two months and it has further been pointed out that it is also evident that the injured person has gone to get himself examined at his own instance without taking recourse of the I.O. i.e. P.W.-13 as I.O. P.W.-13 has categorically stated vide para-21 that no injured person has informed about getting himself examined by the medical board and thus the opinion submitted by the medical board consisting of Dr. Lav Kush Sinha P.W.-6 and Dr. Ashok Kumar P.W.-7 creates a doubt in the entire prosecution case particularly with respect to the nature of injuries inflicted upon the injured person. Further it has been submitted that the I.O. who has categorically stated, as evident from paras-10, 11 & 12 of his testimonies that he has had the occasion to interrogate the injured person and he was found normal in talking and listening and therefore, the subsequent medical examination and that too in absence of any autoscopic report or in absence of X-ray report of C.D. Scan report, their opinion is highly doubtful and unreliable and therefore the report given that the injury was grievous in nature and leading to deafness is not substantiated at all in view of the categorical deposition of the doctor who had first medically examined the injured on 17.01.2020 i.e. on the date of occurrence and he has been examined at the instance of the learned Trial Court as C.W.-1 who has found categorically the following injuries on the person of Ranjeet Kumar Swarnkar as under on the basis of the report from the higher centre i.e. Fortis Kolkata.
(i) CIW- 5c.m. x 2 c.m. skin deep on left parietal scalp.
(ii) C/O chest pain.
(iii) Generalized Bodyache.
X-ray skull- A.P./Lateral X-ray Chest PA. view X-ray LS spine A.P./Lateral X-ray - Hip A.P./Lateral X-ray- B/L knee A.P./Lateral C.T. Brain Patient referred to surgeon / Higher centre for C.T. Brain
2. N.O. I.- Opinion reserved due to patient referred to higher centre and reports no available
3. Caused by injury no.-(i) Sharp cutting object, Injury n o.-(ii) (iii) caused by Hard and Blunt object. A.O.I.- within 06 hours.
4. This report is dated 17.01.2020 was prepared by me and in my handwriting and bears my signature and to which I identify. It is mark as Prosecution Exhibit-5.
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 50 of 2023 -4-
5. Supplementary injury report of Ranjit Kumar Swarnkar age-43 years Male, S/o Bhimlal Swarnkar of Vill- Tiranga Chowk, P.S. Town, Dist. - Giridh.
Patient was referred to higher centre for further evaluation and C.T. Brain was not done and E.N.T. opinion was taken at Fortis Kolkata showing small traumatic perforation in left tympanic membrane.
Audiometry was done at Fortis Kolkata showing mild conductive hearing loss in left ear on 24.01.2020.
N.O.I. - All injury are simple in nature
6. This Supplementary injury report is in my handwriting and signature to which I identify. It is mark as Prosecution Exhibit-5/1.
7. In view of the aforesaid report it is submitted that no offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is substantiated and the learned Trial Court has miserably failed to appreciate the injury report of the injured Ranjeet Kumar Swarnkar and passed the impugned judgement of conviction particularly with respect to the conviction interalia under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
8. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava assisted by Mrs. Manjushri Patra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and submitted that on earlier occasion this Court after proper application of judicial mind has already rejected the prayer for bail of the appellant and therefore just after five months there was no occasion for this Court to reappreciate the evidences as pointed out by the learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and further the discrepancies if any, found in the depositions of the doctors namely Dr. Lav Kush Sinha, P.W.-6, Dr. Ashok Kumar, P.W.-7 and Dr. Ravi Maharshi, C.W.-1,who had examined the injured, it is the matter to be appreciated during the course of hearing the appeal and not at this stage. However, they did not controvert the fact that the first doctor i.e. C.W.-1, Dr. Ravi Maharshi had examined the injured on the date of occurrence i.e. on 17.01.2020 and he had found on the basis of the report of the higher centre i.e. Fortis Kolkata that the injuries inflicted upon the injured Ranjeet Kumar Swarnkar was simple in nature and there was a mild conductive hearing loss in left ear and it has also not been denied that the I.O. P.W.-13 has categorically stated in para-21 that he had no Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 50 of 2023 -5- knowledge about the constitution of the medical board who had examined the injured and in this view of the matter it is submitted by the learned counsels that the appellant does not deserved to be enlarged on bail by suspending the order of sentence.
9. Heard the parties, perused the records of this case including the Lower Court Records.
10. In view of the aforesaid submission and after taking into consideration that there is a vital contradiction in the nature of injuries between the doctor who had first examined (C.W.-1) and the doctors (P.W.-6 and P.W.-7) who had examined subsequently after a lapse of two months. Further, it is also found that there was no occasion for the injured to go suomotu at his own instance to the doctor in order to constitute a medical board while the I.O. or any police official of the prosecution has no knowledge about the same. It is also found that the injury alleged to have been inflicted upon the injured was found to be simple in nature by the first doctor who has thoroughly examined and on the basis of the report of the higher centre i.e. Fortis Kolkata found that the injuries were simple in nature totally negating the opinion of the medical board constituting the doctors P.W.-6 and P.W.-7.
11. In this view of the matter, it has been submitted that the injury report becomes doubtful and therefore, it has been submitted that the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code i.e. attempt to murder is not substantiated as emanating from the nature of injury including the manner and mode of the incident.
12. In the light of the plausible submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant, it is found just and proper to suspend the order of sentence and to enlarge the appellant on bail.
13. Accordingly, the appellant is directed to be enlarged on bail upon furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Giridih in S.T. Case No. 75 of 2021.
14. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 6362 of 2023, stands allowed.
D.S./J.Minj (Navneet Kumar, J.)