2026:JHHC:24441

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 400 of 2008

------

1(a). Pushpa Devi, aged about 50 years, W/o Late Subhash Singh, R/o

Amlo Basti (Ward No. 8), P.O. Amlo, P.S.-Bermo, Dist.-Bokaro

1(b). Avinash Singh, aged about 30 years, S/o Late Subhash Singh, R/o

607, Subhash Nagar,Almo, near Shiv Mandir, P.O. Amlo, P.S.-Bermo, Dist.-

Bokaro

1(c). Sohan Singh, aged about 26 years, S/o Late Subhash Singh, R/o Old

Subhash Nagar, Near Shiv Mandir, P.O. Amlo, P.S. Bermo, Dist.-Bokaro

Representing original appellant Subhash Singh (since deceased), Son

of Late Tribhuwan Singh.

… … … Appellants

Versus

The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent

WITH

Cr. Revision No. 350 of 2008

------

Kedar Nath Pandey, Son of Late Banshnarayan Pandey , R/o-Village

Jaipur, P.S.-Mali, Dist.-Aurangabad, Bihar. Present Address - Qr. No.

M.Q.221 Old Subhash Nagar, P.S. Bermo, Dist. Bokaro, Jharkhand

… … … Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party

------

For the Appellants : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate

Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, Advocate

Mr. Souma Ranjan Mukherjee, Advocate

Mr. Kaushik Chakraborty, Advocate

For the Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Advocate

For the Resp. State : Mr. V.S. Sahay, A.P.P.

[Cr. Ap. (SJ) No. 400 of 2008)

Mr. Azeemuddin, A.P.P.

[Cr. Revision No. 350 of 2008)

2026:JHHC:24441

2

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 400 of 2008 & Cr. Rev. No. 350 of 2008

PRESENT

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

JUDGMENT

------

CAV On 14/07/2026 Pronounced On 14/08/2026

Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. The instant criminal appeal and revision is directed against the

judgment of conviction dated 07

th March, 2008 and order of sentence

dated 14

th March, 2008 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge,

Fast Track Court No. 1, Bermo at Tenughat in S.T. No. 202 of 2006

whereby and whereunder the appellant Subhash Singh (since

deceased) represented through Lrs. has been held guilty for the

offence under Sections 304 Part-II and 308 of the IPC and sentenced to

undergo R.I. for 5 years along with a fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section

304 Part-II of the IPC with default stipulation and further R.I. for 3

years along with a fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 308 of the IPC with

default stipulation.

2. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and

petitioner as well as learned APPs for the State.

Factual Matrix:-

3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 25.12.2005, the

Police heard that an incident of fighting and shooting between two

groups has taken place at old Subhash Nagar. The Officer-in-charge of

police station recorded Sanha No. 833 and proceeded to verify the said

incident but in the meantime, he came to know that Kedar Nath

Pandey-informant (petitioner in criminal revision), Girijesh Pandey

2026:JHHC:24441

3

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 400 of 2008 & Cr. Rev. No. 350 of 2008

and a lady have sustained injuries and were referred to Regional

Hospital, the officer-in-charge went to Hospital and recorded the

fardbeyan of Kedar Nath Pandey who stated that at about 2:00PM, an

altercation took place between the girl of informant and wife of

accused Subhash Singh. Upon this, Subhash Singh entered the house

of informant and shot fire upon the son of informant namely Girijesh

Kumar Pandey hitting Stomach and when the informant tried to

rescue his son, the accused also fired upon the informant hitting left

leg. Thereafter, the accused fired indiscriminately which hit against

wife of Bharat Singh who also sustained injury upon her leg and fell

down. Hearing the sound of bullet fire, the nearby villagers scattered

here and there and the accused Subhash Singh fled away. The

villagers brought the injured informant, Girijesh Pandey and Meena

Devi to hospital and the condition of Girijesh Pandey being serious, he

was referred to Bokaro.

On the basis of above fardbeyan, F.I.R. was registered as Bermo

P.S. Case No. 156 of 2005 under Sections 307/324/34 of the IPC and

later on Section 302 of the IPC was also added after the death of

Girijesh Pandey during treatment against the accused persons.

After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was

submitted against the accused persons under Sections

302/307/324/34 the IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act and

after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of

2026:JHHC:24441

4

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 400 of 2008 & Cr. Rev. No. 350 of 2008

Sessions, where S.T. No. 202 of 2006 was registered. The accused

persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In order to substantiate the aforesaid charges leveled against the

accused persons, altogether 12 witnesses were examined by the

prosecution:-

P.W.-1 Leela Dhari

P.W.-2 Sanat Kumar

P.W.-3 Ranjeet Kumar

P.W.-4 Dr. Ravindra Nath

P.W.-5 Nagendra Pandey

P.W.-6 Dr. Chandra Shekhar Prasad

P.W.-7 Shankar Prasad

P.W.-8 Kedar Nath Pandey (Informant-cum-

injured)

P.W.-9 Dr. Suresh Kumar Singh

P.W.-10 Dr. R.K. Mishra

P.W.-11 Srishtidhar Mhato (I.O.)

P.W.-12 Meena Devi (Injured)

5. Apart from the oral testimony, the prosecution has also adduced

following documentary evidence:-

Ext.-1 Injury Report of Kedar Nath Pandey

Ext.-1/1 Injury Report of Meena Devi

Ext. 2 and 2/1 Signature of Nagendra Pandey on CC of

Inquest Report

Ext.-3 P.M. Report of Girijesh Pandey

Ext.-4 Medico Legal Report of Girijesh Pandey

Ext.-5 Registration Certificate of Girijesh Pandey

about his admission in Surgery Unit B.G.H.,

Bokaro

Ext.-6 Operation Note by Surgeon of

Girijesh Pandey

Ext. -7 X-ray Report Form of Girijesh Pandey

2026:JHHC:24441

5

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 400 of 2008 & Cr. Rev. No. 350 of 2008

Ext.-8 Discharge Slip

Ext.-9 Formal F.I.R.

Ext.-10 Fardbeyan

Ext.-11 Carbon Copy of Inquest Report

Ext.-12 Paragraph 1 to 84 of C.D.

Ext.-13 Paragraph 85 to 116 of C.D.

6. On the other hand, one defence witness namely Smt. Pushpa Devi

(D.W.-1) has been examined by the defence.

7. Apart from oral testimony, defence has also adduced some

documentary evidence.

Ext.-A Copy of F.I.R. of Bermo (Tenughat) P.S.

Case No. 157/2005

Ext.-B Fardbeyan of D.W.-1

Ext.-C C.D. of Investigation

8. The learned trial Court after threadbare analysis of the ocular

testimony of the witnesses led by the prosecution as well as defence

and also taking into account the documentary evidence adduced by

the prosecution, arrived at conclusion of guilt of the deceased

appellant Subhash Singh for the offence and sentenced as stated

above.

Submissions on behalf of appellants: -

9. Learned counsel for the appellants assailing the impugned judgment

of conviction and sentence of the deceased appellant Subhash Singh,

has strenuously argued that the learned trial Court has committed

serious illegality in holding the deceased Subhash Singh guilty for the

offence under Section 304Part-II and 308 of the IPC on the basis of the

evidence of only interested witnesses and failed to consider the

2026:JHHC:24441

6

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 400 of 2008 & Cr. Rev. No. 350 of 2008

contradictions in their statements. It is further submitted that the

occurrence took place between two groups of the family and there was

exchange of assault between two groups which has not been

considered by the learned trial court and the learned trial Court has

convicted only the deceased appellant Subhash Singh in this case. It

has also been submitted that the alleged revolver which was used was

a licensed weapon and when the revolver was tried to snatched, the

occurrence took place. It has also been submitted that deceased

appellant and his wife had also sustained injuries in course of

altercation which is evident from the evidence of P.W.-11 as well as

P.W.-12 but the prosecution has failed to explain the above injury and

the learned trial Court has not taken into consideration these facts to

acquit the deceased appellant rather his conviction order has been

passed. In view of the above grounds, the deceased appellant deserves

acquittal and the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial

Court deserves to be set aside and this appeal may be allowed.

Submissions on behalf of the petitioner:-

10. Learned counsel appearing for the informant/petitioner has

submitted that the learned trial court has failed to consider the fact

that there was consistent evidence of the prosecution witnesses that

the accused (deceased appellant) has intentionally fired upon the

injured to kill them and this fact has not rightly been considered by

the learned trial Court and has not convicted and passed the sentence

2026:JHHC:24441

7

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 400 of 2008 & Cr. Rev. No. 350 of 2008

under Section 302, 307, 324 and 34 of the IPC, rather, has been

convicted and sentenced under Section 304 Part-II and 308 of the IPC.

Submissions on behalf of the State

11. On the other hand, learned A.P.Ps defending the judgment and order

of conviction and sentence of the deceased appellant has submitted

that the learned trial Court has very wisely and aptly considered all

the materials available on record and rightly convicted the deceased

appellant for the offence under Section 304 Part-II and 308 of the I.P.C.

and has not committed any illegality or infirmity in passing the

impugned judgment which does not call for any interference in this

appeal and revision, which are devoid of merits and fit to be

dismissed.

12. I have gone through the record along with the impugned judgment in

the light of rival contentions raised on behalf of both the parties.

13. The sole question emerges for consideration in this appeal and

revision is as to “whether the conviction and sentence of the deceased

appellant suffers from any error of law, calling for any interference in

this appeal and revision?

Analysis, reasons and decision:

14. Before adverting to adjudicate upon the above point, I have to take

brief resume of oral as well as documentary evidence adduced in this

case during trial.

PW-1 Leela Dhari Prasad Gupta deposed that on 25-12-05, at about

2:00 P.M., he was at his house and having heard hulla went to place of

occurrence and saw exchange of abuses between the family of

2026:JHHC:24441

8

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 400 of 2008 & Cr. Rev. No. 350 of 2008

Subhash Singh and Chandreshwar Singh and family of Kedar Nath

Pandey. When he tried to pacify them meanwhile Subhash Singh and

Chandreshwar Singh threatened to shoot and suddenly Subhash

Singh brought out the revolver and shot two fires on stomach of

Girijesh Pandey who sustaining bullet injuries fell down and become

unconscious. Thereafter, again Subhash Singh indiscriminately shot

fire and bullet injury was sustained by Kedar Nath Pandey and by

Meena Devi on left leg and on right thigh, respectively. Then, they

took the injured to Dhori hospital and all the three injured were given

treatment there but as condition of Girijesh Pandey was serious so he

was sent to B.G.H, Bokaro and was given treatment at B.G.H, Bokaro

and he later was taken to C.C.L. hospital Gandhi Nagar, Ranchi but

again hospital referred to APPOLO hospital, Ranchi, and they took

Girijesh Pandey again to C.C.L hospital Gandhi Nagar where he died.

He further deposed that the reason behind the occurrence is vacant

land of C.C.L situated at between the quarter of Mani Shankar Pandey

and Chandreshwar Singh and for the last 30-40 years Mani Shankar

Pandey was using that land to tether his cattle but for the last two

years Chandreshwar Singh and Subhash Singh were raising objection

stating that the land is belonging to them. He categorically deposed

that Kedar Nath Pandey and others were assaulted by Subhash Singh.

In cross-examination, he stated that this witness with injured went

to Regional hospital, Dhori, to B.G.H,Bokaro, to C.C.L hospital Ranchi

and also to APPOLO hospital Ranchi and finally injured were taken to

2026:JHHC:24441

9

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 400 of 2008 & Cr. Rev. No. 350 of 2008

Gandhi Nagar after 15-20 days of the occurrence. He has further stated

that he visited APPOLO hospital twice, firstly after four days and

secondly after one week of first visit. He has further stated about the

occurrence and there is nothing else in his cross-examination to

disbelieve the above testimony.

PW-2 Sanat Kumar deposed that on 25-12-05 2:00 PM, this witness on

hearing hulla came out of his house, saw a crowd gathered near the

house of Kedar Nath Pandey and on reaching there saw Subhash

Singh, wife of Subhash Singh, Chandreshwar Singh and their other

family members standing at the door of house of Kedar Nath Pandey

and abusing them. He requested them not to abuse but suddenly

Chandreshwar Singh exhorted to shoot fire and Subhash Singh

entered into his quarter came back with a revolver and shot the fire on

Girijesh Pandey who sustained bullet injury in stomach and after

sustaining first bullet injury he was felling down till then second fire

was shot and this bullet also hit against the stomach of Girijesh

Pandey who fell down. Subhash Singh shot fire indiscriminately

which caused injuries to Kedar Nath Pandey on left leg and Meena

Devi on right thigh who were taken to Dhori hospital and were

referred to B.G.H, Bokaro. In B.G.H, Bokaro one bullet after operation

was removed from the body and was taken to Gandhi Nagar hospital.

After 2-3 days of treatment in Gandhi Nagar hospital, further

treatment was taken at APPOLO, Ranchi. After 35-36 days he was

again referred to Gandhi Nagar hospital and where he died. He

2026:JHHC:24441

10

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 400 of 2008 & Cr. Rev. No. 350 of 2008

further deposed that the reason behind the occurrence is vacant land

as stated by P.W.-1.

In cross-examination, he deposed that this witness did not went to

every hospital where the injured were admitted and he accompanied

Girijesh Pandey to B.G.H, Bokaro hospital, Girijesh Pandey remained

admitted in B.G.H, Bokaro for 10-11 days and he did not had any

opportunity to speak to Girijesh Pandey at B.G.H, Bokaro. He has

further stated that he never saw Subhash Singh and Chandreshwar

Singh in injured condition and he is having no knowledge that they

sustained injuries and were brought to hospital on that very day. He

has also denied the suggestion of the defence that on the day of

incident Kedar Nath Pandey, Girijesh Pandey and their 15-16 other

associates gave merciless beating to Subhash Singh and

Chandreshwar Singh, robbed their belongings as well as licensee

revolver and while shooting fire run away. He has admitted that prior

to present incident Kedar Nath Pandey's daughter instituted a case

against Subhash Singh, Subhash's wife and sons of Chandreshwar

Singh and the said case was of assault and not of outraging of

modesty. He has denied that he was deposing falsely.

PW-3 Ranjit Kumar Turi deposed that on the date of occurrence, he

was sitting near the house of his maternal uncle Ramnath Ram nearest

to the place of occurrence and went to the place of occurrence and saw

that Subhash Singh took out a pistol from his house and shot two fires

on stomach of Girijeshi Pandey who fell down and thereafter Kedar

2026:JHHC:24441

11

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 400 of 2008 & Cr. Rev. No. 350 of 2008

Pandey sustained bullet injury underneath left knee and Meena Devi

sustained bullet injury on right thigh. The injured Girijesh Pandey,

Kedar Pandey and Meena Devi were taken to Regional hospital, Dhori

and Girijesh was referred to Bokaro and from Bokaro, he was taken to

Ranchi who died due to bullet injury during treatment at Ranchi

inflicted by Subhash. Same reason has also been stated behind the

occurrence as stated by above two witnesses.

In cross-examination, he stated that his statement was recorded by

police at the house of Kedar Nath Pandey on the next day of

occurrence. He has further stated that he did not see Subhash Singh,

Chandreshwar Singh and wife of Subhash Singh in injured condition.

This witness has been cross-examined at length but nothing has been

elicited to disbelieve the above testimony.

PW-4 Dr. Ravindra Nath Singh deposed that on 29-12-05 he was

posted at Regioinal hospital, Dhori and examined injured Kedar

Pandey and Meena Devi and on examination of Kedar Pandey, he

found a gunshot injury on lateral side of middle of his left leg, entry

and exit holes were there on the leg with fresh bleeding, X-ray was

done but no bullet was seen inside the muddier bone of the leg. The

injury was grievous in nature.

On examination of Meena Devi, he found a circular hole

measuring 4" x 4" in diameter with fresh bleeding on the posterior

surface of mid of right thigh, X-ray was done and bullet was seen

lodged in the thigh muscle. The injury was grievous and was caused

2026:JHHC:24441

12

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 400 of 2008 & Cr. Rev. No. 350 of 2008

by gun shot. He prepared the examination report of aforesaid injured

and exhibited his signature on report of Kedar Nath Pandey as Ext-1

and on report of Meena Devi as Ext-1/1.

In cross- examination, he clarified that from his personal

knowledge he mentioned the time of occurrence in the report and the

place of occurrence was told by the patient. He has further stated that

Kedar Nath Pandey was indoor patient but he is not remembering his

bed head ticket number or about the length of tenure during which he

remained admitted in the hospital.

PW-5 Nagendra Pandey deposed that Girijesh Pandey was his

nephew and he died due to bullet injuries at the time of treatment.

After his death, the police prepared inquest report and this witness

and Nand Kishore signed on the inquest report. He identified their

signatures as Ext-2 and Ext-2/1.

In his cross-examination also, there is nothing to disbelieve the

testimony of this witness.

PW-6 Dr. Chandra Shekhar Prasad is the Autopsy Surgeon posted at

RIMS, Ranchi and conducted autopsy of the dead body of Girijesh

Pandey and found ante-mortem infected stitched wounds of one of

size 9cm x 4cm on abdomen lower part mid-line and another of size

4cm x 2cm on front of abdomen upper part midline and one another of

size 1/2cm x 1/2cm on left iliac phossa. In addition to above ante-

mortem infected stitched wounds, he found healed wounds on the

person of the deceased one of size 2cm x 2cm on left chest lateral side

2026:JHHC:24441

13

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 400 of 2008 & Cr. Rev. No. 350 of 2008

lower part, another of size 1/2cm x 1/2cm on left chest above from

middle part and multiple small healed wounds of Pea size on front of

abdomen. In internal examination, he found small intestine repaired at

two places and large intestine also repaired at two places. There was

presence of pus in peritoneal cavity. The coils of intestine are

cemented evidence of peritonitis. He opined that the aforesaid injuries

were anti- mortem in nature but opinion regarding original nature of

wounds can be had from the Surgeon concern. Regarding cause of

death,, he opined that the death was due to peritonitis as a result of

above injuries and time since death was in between 6 hours to 24

hours preceding autopsy. He exhibited his signature on Post-mortem

report as Ext-3.

In cross- examination, he stated that abdomen was not distended,

bed sores were found over sectoral region. He deposed that peritonitis

and bad sores cannot occur due to negligence in treatment but bed

sores occurs due to long standing lying in a position and in-spite of all

precaution bed sores may appear and watch bed is one of the

precautionary measures to avoid bed sores but the Surgeon may tell

the best precautionary measure for bed sores. He also deposed that on

Set the medical treatment given by the Surgeon concern infection

caused and the stitched wound was infected and such infection does

not cause due to negligence in treatment. Regarding question as to

whether such infection can be there due to removal from one hospital

to another or due to taking of the patient to home, he replied that

2026:JHHC:24441

14

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 400 of 2008 & Cr. Rev. No. 350 of 2008

Surgeon may answer this. In response to further questions, he replied

that rigor mortis was present all over the body, there was no post-

mortem lividity, that he is having no report of the concerned Surgeon

but despite that he can say about cause of death. That he found

infected stitched wounds, recently healed wounds and repaired

intestine and in this regard it is only the surgeon who can speak as to

in what condition abdomen was opened and repair of the intestine

was needed and these are the reasons why he opined that nature of

the original injuries can be obtained from the Surgeon concern and he

is not in a position to opine about the original nature of injuries.

PW-7 Shankar Prasad has also deposed the same as stated by P.W.-1,

2 and 3.

In cross-examination, he clarified that his own house is at a

distance of 20-25 yards from the house of Subhash Singh and he has

further remained intact in his testimony.

PW-8 Kedar Nath Pandey is the informant/injured of this case and

father of deceased Girijesh Pandey. He deposed that on 25-12-2005 at

2:00 P.M, this witness and Girijesh Pandey, on hearing exchange of

abusive language between his wife and wife of Chandreshwar Singh

and Subhash Singh came out from the house and saw Subhash and

Chandreshwar present at stair of his house. Chandreshwar exhorted

to shoot the Brahman and, upon this Subhash came running and shot

two fires, on left side and right side of stomach of his son, his son fell

down and when he was lifting his son, Subhash Singh shot

2026:JHHC:24441

15

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 400 of 2008 & Cr. Rev. No. 350 of 2008

underneath his left knee. He deposed further that the subsequent

bullet fired hit the thigh of Meena Devi, then 30- 35 persons gathered

there and Subhash Singh while shooting fire fled away. All the

injured, in a Tempo were taken to Regional hospital, Dhori but his

son, from there was referred to Bokaro and this witness and Meena

Devi were admitted in the Regional hospital. Police came to the

hospital and recorded his statement and this witness put his signature

thereon. He identified his signature and further deposed that he took

treatment there for 21 days and his son, after treatment at Bokaro was

referred to Gandhi Nagar, Ranchi and when his condition deteriorated

he was sent to APPOLO hospital, Ranchi where they were told that his

life was of 2-4 days only and they were asked to leave the hospital so

they again brought him to Gandhi Nagar and on 9th March his son

died. He also deposed that a ten feet long plain land is in between the

house of Mani Sankar Pandey and Chandreshwar Singh and his

brother Mani Shankar used to tether his cow there for the last 40 years

but Chandreshwar was demanding that land to tether his cow and

dispute about this land was there for the last one month.

In cross- examination, he stated that he did not tell the police that

there was exchange of abusive words between his daughter and wife

of Subhash Singh rather stated that on hearing voices of ladies he and

Girijesh Pandey came out of the house. His son was serious at the time

when he made statement to the police. He denied that he has stated to

police that when he was sitting at his house at that time Subhash

2026:JHHC:24441

16

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 400 of 2008 & Cr. Rev. No. 350 of 2008

Singh entered their house and shot fire on his son. He stated that Mani

Shankar Pandey is residing in a separate house and on the day of

incident Mani Shankar was on duty. He denied of having knowledge

that on the day of the incident, in addition to Meena Devi and Girijesh

Pandey, Subhash Singh and wife of Subhash Singh, in injured

condition were admitted in the hospital. Two months before the

incident, he had made complaint to the S.P. and to the police station

against Subhash Singh and Chandreshwar for giving threat of

shooting and said complaint was having signature of 150 persons. He

did not obtain receipt of the complaint given at police station but

receipt of complaint given to the S.P was supplied to his nephew

Satish Kumar Pandey. His son was operated upon by Dr. Ali Saheb of

APPOLO but he is not knowing the name of Surgeon who operated

his son at Bokaro. His son, after stay of 49 days in APPOLO hospital

was taken to Gandhi Nagar because they were suggested at APPOLO

that chances of his survival is no more and it was asked to take him to

Vellore or to Delhi. The intestine of his son continues to sore. On 49th

day of his son's admission in APPOLO they were told to take him to

Vellore, they were preparing to go to Vellore but meanwhile his son

died. He claimed ignorance as to whether his son was treated properly

or not at B.G.H, Bokaro. He admitted that wife of accused instituted a

case of assault against them, they took bail in that case and that in said

case, they were arrested. He denied that after their arrest, on his

instigation the house of the accused was attacked and beating was

2026:JHHC:24441

17

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 400 of 2008 & Cr. Rev. No. 350 of 2008

given. He clarified that at that time he was at Tenughat and he is

having no knowledge about that case. In further cross-examination by

defence, he stated that altercation and abuses continued for 10-15

minutes and during that Sanat Singh, Girdhari Pd., Shankar Paswan

etc. come. Firstly his son sustained bullet injury, then he sustained

bullet injury and thereafter wife of Bharat Singh sustained bullet

injury. Prior to present incident he did not see revolver of Subhash

Singh but he had heard that it was six round revolver. He claimed

ignorance that for better treatment Subhash Singh and wife of

Subhash Singh, who were having wound were referred to C.C.L.

hospital Gandhi Nagar. He also deposed that they, at the time of their

arrest came to know that a case of causing serious injury has been

instituted against them. He claimed ignorance as to whether police

made enquiry from his son Girijesh Pandey. He admitted that on 27-

11-05 his daughter instituted a case against the accused persons. He

denied that on 25-12-05 at 2:00 PM he, Mani Shankar Pandey, Dilip

Pandey, Nand Kishore Pandey, Udit Pandey, Girijesh Pandey, Nirej

Pandey, Dhiraj Pandey etc. entered in the house of Subhash Singh,

gave severe beating to Subhash Singh and to wife of Subhash Singh or

obtained key of Almirah after rebuking Sohan Singh son of Subhash

Singh or that Ajay Yadav and Akshay Pandey took out the licensee

revolver of Subhash Singh and everyone of them indulged in

snatching to take the possession of revolver or that Puspa Devi asked

them to desist as the revolver was loaded but they did not pay

2026:JHHC:24441

18

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 400 of 2008 & Cr. Rev. No. 350 of 2008

adherence and in the process of snatching of revolver trigger of

revolver was pressed and they sustained bullet injury. He also denied

that they removed Rs.15,000/- cash and 30 tola gold and revolver from

the house of Subhash. He denied that he has suppressed the real facts

or that his son was never injured by the accused persons.

PW-9 Dr. Suresh Kumar Singh deposed that on 25-12-05 at 3:50 P.M,

he examined Girijesh Pandey who was brought having history of

physical assault by fire arm at about 2:50 P.M. at Subhash Nagar

Bermo by known persons Subhash Singh S/O Tribhuwan Singh of

Subhash Nagar Bermo as stated by the patient himself. As per paper

given by attendant and attached with case the patient had taken initial

treatment at Regional hospital, Dhori. He was admitted in Surgery in

Dr. P.K. Sarkar unit having hospital no.65887/05. He found a

lacerated wound on his left mid auxiliary line, 12 inches below oval, of

size 1" x ¼” with tattooing mark, long axis vertical extension, margin

inverted with fresh bleeding, the wound of entry and another

lacerated wound in right hypoclondrium; oval shaped (3/4" x 1/2")

long axis oblique position 3" below last rib and 4" way mid line,

averted margin bright red color, would of exit. X-ray of chest was

done. He opined that the injuries were fire arm injuries; the age of

injuries was less than 12 hours. Regarding opinion about nature of

injuries, he deposed that same may be taken from Dr.R.K.Mishra

Surgeon on duty. He exhibited his signature on injury report.

In cross-examination, he claimed ignorance about the number of

2026:JHHC:24441

19

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 400 of 2008 & Cr. Rev. No. 350 of 2008

days during which the patient remained under treatment in hospital

or about the person who brought him to hospital but clarified that the

broughter told him the name of the patient and the patient himself

also told his name to him. He denied that he prepared the report in

collusion with the family of the injured or that his report is

manufactured one but he admitted that digit 6 has been corrected as 5.

PW-10 Dr. R. K. Mishra is the Surgeon and he deposed that after

initial admission in casualty, as a Surgeon on duty patient was

examined by him. On clinical examination the patient was found

having features of Haemoparitoneum. The peritoneal cavity was full

of blood and fluid and there were two vents one to interior wall and

one is posterior wall of stomach. There was lacerated wound of lower

pole of spleen and tail of pancreas. There was vent in retrorespitonium

and is haemafoma. Blood was mopped vent of stomach and

retrorespitonium was closed and spleenorrapy was done,

Paritoneallivage was given and ablomew was closed in layers with

drain. On second post operative examination there was features of

spinal shock. There was no sensation in both lower limbs and there are

features of panptesiator and there which neuro surgical consultation

was done. He further deposed that survey was done on 25-12-05 and

the patient was discharged on 05-01-06 and was referred to higher

centers for management of parpelegia. This witness further deposed

that there was report of no contrast C.T. Scan of gunshot injury,

fracture of vertebrae plus embedded thragment in canal. That this case

2026:JHHC:24441

20

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 400 of 2008 & Cr. Rev. No. 350 of 2008

was also examined by neuro Surgeon Dr. N. K. Das and he has written

evidence of bullet at vertebral body with bullet trace passing across

the spinal column, quarry transaction of chord, possibility or recovery

of limbs is negligible. He identified his signature on Admit Card and

also on operation of and further deposed that the X-ray information

report is in the writing of Senior Deputy Director of Radiology. Dr.

Mrs. Kapoor. He also exhibited the report as being in the writing of

the H.O.D. Neurosurgery Dr. N. K. Das and identified signature of Dr.

Das thereon and deposed that he collected the reports for treatment.

In cross-examination, he clarified that he asked for the N.C.T. Scan

report but same could be acquired after the operation. The operation

was done on 25-12-05 and report was received on 31-12-05. On 02-01-

06, he asked for the report of Neuro-Surgeon and said report received

on 04-01-06 and before operation, no report of Neurosurgeon or report

Anesthesia was received. He clarified that his successful surgery was

reason for discharge on 05-01-06 and patient was discharged for

treatment of paraplegia but it has not been mentioned in his note-

sheet. He had brought bed head ticket. He clarified that N.C.C.T

report is a neuro report. There was loss of senses below D-10 vertibra

and during examination no bullet was recovered. He was of the view

that patient had features of paraplegia, He clarified that he received no

documents regarding the initial treatment of patient in Dhori Regional

hospital. The reasons for bed-sores on the body of the patient was

paraplegia, he had no sense on sore parts and the bed-sore was due to

2026:JHHC:24441

21

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 400 of 2008 & Cr. Rev. No. 350 of 2008

this reason. By use of water beds, bed-sore can be avoided. There was

no infection on the stitches given by him at the time of discharge. The

stitches 9cm x 4cm in front of abdomen lower part mid-line has not

done by him. Stitches 4.2cm in front of abdomen upper part mid-line

was given by him. Stitches 1/2cm x 1/2cm on left illiaphosa was also

not given by him. He further deposed that while conducting the

surgery, he has not repaired the small intestine at two places and large

intestine at two places. Both the intestines were not repaired by him.

Pleritenisom is the infelamatia of paritonial cavity and it may be due

to many reasons of blood, free blood in the paritonial cavity, the

material leaked from viscera or bactuial infection of the pleritonial. It

is clinically diagnostic by pain, tenderness, blood like rigidity. He

admitted that he is not a Radialogist or a Neuro-Surgeon.

PW-11 Srishtidhar Mahto is the I.O. of this case who deposed that on

25-12-05, when he was posted as S.I. at P.S. Bermo, he received an

information by way of rumor that a fight had taken place between two

groups in old Subhash Nagar and shooting of fire also took there.

Then, he recorded Sanha no.833 and to verify the fact proceeded for

there but on the way, he came to know that in firing, Kedar Nath

Pandey, his son Girijesh Pandey and a lady sustained injuries and the

trio has been referred to Regional hospital, Dhori. He went to said

hospital, saw Kedar Nath Pandey in injured condition there and

recorded Fardbeyan of Kedar Nath Pandey. He also recorded

statement of injured Meena Devi and witnesses namely Yogendra Pd.

2026:JHHC:24441

22

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 400 of 2008 & Cr. Rev. No. 350 of 2008

Singh, Ram Swarup Singh, Leela Dhari Pd. Gupta, Sanat Pd. Singh

and Birendra Pd. Singh, issued the requisition for medical

examination of injured and returned back to police station with

Fardbeyan. Formal F.I.R., on the basis of Fardbeyan was recorded and

it bears signature of Officer-in-charge Rajbali Choudhary. During

investigation, he inspected the place of occurrence which is the quarter

of informant Kedar Nath Pandey in old Subhash Nagar and it was

stated to him that the injured at the time of incident were at the gate of

said Quarter. Quarter of accused Subhash Singh is in front of Quarter

of Kedar Pandey and the distance between the two Quarters is 10

yards, a Shiv temple is in north at a distance of 40 yards from place of

incident. On 01- 01-06, he collected injury report of Kedar Pandey and

of Meena Devi and accused Subhash Singh and accused

Chandreshwar Singh were arrested by him on 14-01-06 and on 26-12-

05 respectively. This witness on 26-02-06 recorded statement of injured

Girijesh Pandey and Girijesh Pandey stated to him that on 25-12-05 at

2:00 P.M, altercation took place between the ladies of his house and

wife of Subhash Singh and Subhash and Chandreshwar Singh

indulged in abusing, Chandreshwar Singh gave threat to kill him and

Subhash Singh with his licensee revolver shot two fire upon him and

he sustained shots on both side of stomach, his father and Meena Devi

also sustained bullet injuries. Girijesh also stated that he is unable to

sit as the bullet is still fastened in his back bone. The S.I. further

deposed that he subsequently handed over the investigation to the

2026:JHHC:24441

23

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 400 of 2008 & Cr. Rev. No. 350 of 2008

Officer-in- charge and it was assigned by him to S.I. Fransis Rajwar.

He deposed that Para no.1 to 84 of case diary is in his writing.

In cross-examination, he categorically deposed that in hospital he

saw accused Subhash Singh and Subhash Singh's wife Pushpa Devi in

injured condition and he issued requisition for their medical

examination. He clarified that on 25-12-05 at 7:30 P.M., he saw

Subhash Singh at Dhori hospital in serious injured condition with his

face bleeding and covered with bandage and tried to record his

statement but doctor informed him that due to injuries he was unable

to speak so on that day he recorded Fardbeyan of wife of Subhash

Singh who was admitted in ladies ward. On the basis of her

Fardbeyan F.I.R.no.157/05 was registered. On 29-12-05, he again went

to hospital and met Subhash Singh who was having bandage at his

face at that time also due to bleeding, he expressed difficulty in

speaking and requested to defer his statement and doctor also told

him that for better treatment Subhash would be referred to Ranchi. He

admitted that on 27-11-05, Rina Kumari lodged F.I.R.no.149/05

against Chandreshwar Singh, Rakesh Singh and Subhash Singh and in

said case, a recommendation for proceeding u/s 107 was made.

During investigation, he demanded revolver and the license of the

revolver from Pushpa Devi wife of Subhash but she informed that on

the day of incident revolver was taken by Kedar Pandey. He

conducted raid to recover the revolver but it could not be recovered.

PW-12 Meena Devi deposed that on 25-12- 05 at 2:00 P.M, she was

2026:JHHC:24441

24

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 400 of 2008 & Cr. Rev. No. 350 of 2008

standing at the door of the house of Kedar Pandey and at that time an

altercation was going on between the wife of Kedar Pandey, Mani

Pandey and wife Subhash Singh and Chandreshwar Singh asked

Subhash Singh to bring bullet and to kill then Subhash Singh shot two

fire on Girijesh Pandey and Girijesh Pandey fell down. Thereafter

Subhash fired another bullet which landed on the leg of Kedar Pandey

and further bullet fired landed on her thigh on right portion. She

sustained injury and blood started oozing, then, they were taken to

Regional hospital Dhori and from there, she was referred to Ranchi

Gandhi Nagar hospital and bullet by operation was taken out. Girijesh

Pandey died due to bullet injury. Reason behind the incident, she

stated that the plain land of CCL in between the quarter of Subhash

Singh and Mani Shankar was the root cause of occurrence.

In cross-examination, there is nothing to disbelieve her testimony

and she has remained intact.

15. On the other hand, defence has also examined one witness i.e. DW-1

Smt. Pushpa Devi who deposed that on 25-12-05 her sons Sohan

Kumar and Avinash went to village pond for taking bath and

washing clothes as there was no water in house on that day. After

sometime her son Sohan came running and informed that Avinash is

being beaten by Udit Pandey, Neeraj Pandey and Dheeraj Pandey.

Her husband was not in the house and she asked her son Sohan to

see whether Panditjee is there at the house. Sohan replied that Mani

Shankar Pandit is sitting at the gate of his house. She, from behind

2026:JHHC:24441

25

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 400 of 2008 & Cr. Rev. No. 350 of 2008

curtain complained to Mani Shankar that his son is beating her son at

the pond but meanwhile Kedar Pandey and Kedar Pandey's wife,

while abusing passed from in front of her door and went to the gate

of the house of Mani Shankar. She raised protest that they are not

desisting their son, rather, she is abusing her but on that daughters of

Kedar Pandey and daughter of Mani Shankar Pandey started abusing

her. She further deposed that Mani Shankar Pandey and his wife,

Dilip Pandey and his wife, Satish Pandey and his wife, Kedar Pandey

and his wife, Nand Kishore Pandey, Udit, Sunaina, Rina Kumari

entered her house, gave beating to her and damaged the belonging of

her house. Kedar Pandey also asked her to give revolver and when

she forbade to do so they gave beating to her with rod and lathi.

Having seen her condition her son threw key of Almirah towards the

assailants. Ajay Yadav opened the Almirah and Akshay Pandey took

out the revolver and Akshay Pandey, while shooting fire run away.

Assailants also took jewelry and cash from her house. The said

incident is of 1:30 P.M. and her husband at that time was not in the

house and was arriving back from duty and as soon as he reached at

the gate of the house, he was given beating, at the gate by Kedar

Pandey. They took treatment, firstly at Regional hospital and

thereafter at C.C.L hospital. Her statement was recorded by the

police in hospital and on her statement Bermo (Tenughat) P.S. Case

No. 157 of 2005 was registered. She further deposed that her husband

has falsely been implicated and their revolver could not yet be

2026:JHHC:24441

26

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 400 of 2008 & Cr. Rev. No. 350 of 2008

recovered.

In cross- examination by learned A.P.P, she admitted that Kedar

Nath Pandey, Meena Devi and Girijesh Pandey sustained injuries but

she claimed ignorance as to who sustained gunshot injuries. She

denied that was tutored and stated that whatever she has deposed is

the reality, seen and faced by her. Revolver was in the name of her

father-in-law, she handed over the license of the revolver to the

police. She denied that in order to save her husband she instituted a

false case or that she deposed falsely.

16. After going through the testimony of the witnesses examined in this

case, it appears that root cause of the occurrence was dispute

regarding vacant land in between the house of accused Subhash Singh

and Mani Shankar. From the statement of injured witnesses Kedar

Nath Pandey (P.W.-8) and Meena Devi (P.W.-12) and also from the

statement of eye-witnesses P.W.-1 Leela Dhari Prasad Gupta, P.W.-2

Sanat Kumar and P.W.-3 Ranjit Kumar Turi, it is crystal clear that

accused Subhash Singh shot upon injured persons and also upon

deceased Girijesh Pandey, which finds corroboration from the medical

evidence of Dr. Ravindra Nath Singh (P.W.-4), Dr. Chandra Shekhar

Prasad (P.W.-6), Dr. Suresh Kumar Singh (P.W.-9) and Dr. R.K. Mishra

(P.W.-10). The I.O. (P.W.-11) Srishtidhar Mahto has proved the place

of occurrence and genesis of occurrence. He also proved that in course

of altercation accused Subhash Singh and his wife Pushpa Devi also

sustained injuries. In view of the above, I am of the considered view

2026:JHHC:24441

27

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 400 of 2008 & Cr. Rev. No. 350 of 2008

that occurrence took place in the course of sudden quarrel and thus,

the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the accused Subhash

Singh under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC acquitting him from the

other charges which warrants no interference in this appeal. There is

no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the

learned trial Court which is hereby affirmed.

17. In result, the appeal preferred by the appellant as well as revision

preferred by the informant both stands dismissed.

18. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly.

19. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be sent

back to the court concerned immediately for information and needful.

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi

Date: 14./08/2026

Basant/-N.A.F.R.

Uploaded on 14/08/2026