IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 1313 of 2007 [Against the Judgment of conviction dated 20.09.2007 and Order of sentence dated 21.09.2007, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Garhwa in Sessions Trial No. 124 of 2002.] 1. Majmuddin Ansari, Son of Sultan Miyan. 2. Anil Ansari, Son of Majmuddin Ansari. Both residents of village Bhojpur, Police Station- Nagar Untari, District- Garhwa. ….. Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Respondent ….. For the Appellants : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. Mr. M.K. Sinha, Advocate. Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. P.D. Agarwal, Spl.P.P. ….. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT Dated: 10th January, 2025 By Court:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 20.09.2007 and order of sentence dated 21.09.2007 passed by learned 1st Additional Sesssions Judge, Garhwa in Sessions Trial No. 124 of 2002 whereby and where under, both the appellants have been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 of the I.P.C. and the appellant no. 1 has been further convicted under Section 324 of the I.P.C. and appellant no. 2 under Sections 323 and 325 of the I.P.C. and both are sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years along with fine of Rs.500/- under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and Appellant No. 1 is further sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years under Section 324 of the I.P.C. and appellant no. 2 to undergo R.I. for one year and two years, respectively under Sections 323 and 325 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 in a narrow compass is that on 16.10.2000 at 07:30 AM, brother of the informant was sowing potato on his land, which was just adjacent to the land of the informant. Brother of the informant dumped soil in land of the informant, due to this reason an altercation took place between them. Above named accused persons started assaulting the informant by means of lathi and danda, resulting which informant sustained grievous injury. Upon raising alarm, some persons came and saved him. After the occurrence, informant and his son were brought to the hospital, where they were treated. 4. On the basis of above information, FIR being Nagaruttari P.S. Case No. 142 of 2000 was registered against the above named accused persons for the offences under Sections 341/323/324/325/34 of the I.P.C. 5. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge sheet against accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 341/323/324/325/307/34 of the I.P.C. After taking cognizance of offence, the case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial. Thereafter, charges were framed for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 307/34 of the I.P.C. against the accused persons which they denied and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against them, altogether nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution. P.W.-1 : Anand Sharma. P.W.-2 : Rajendra Prasad Gupta. P.W.-3 : Birju Sao. P.W.-4 : Dashrath Prasad Gupta. P.W.-5 : Rashidan Bibi. P.W.-6 : Tejmul Ansari. P.W.-7 : Dr. Sita Ram Gupta. P.W.-8 : Sunil Kumar Sharma. P.W.-9 : Dinesh Prasad Singh. 7. Apart from oral evidence, following documentary evidences were also adduced. Exhibit-1 : Injury Report of Tejmul Ansari. Exhibit-2 : Formal FIR. 8. On the other hand, the defence has also exhibited two documentary evidences. Exhibit-A : Certified copy of the complaint petition filed on behalf of the appellant no. 1. Exhibit-B : Certified copy of order sheet of Complaint Case No. 551/2000. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there is land dispute between the parties. Most of the eye witnesses have turned hostile. I.O. has also not been examined to prove the place of occurrence. Neither the blood stained cloths nor blood stained soil were seized by the I.O. The conviction of appellants is bad in law and fit to be set aside. The learned trial court has convicted the appellants only on the basis of evidence of P.W.-3, but has failed to appreciate that P.W.-3 has stated the time of occurrence at about 03:00 O’ Clock, but alleged occurrence has taken place at 7 O’ Clock and appellant no. 1 has assaulted the informant by lathi, although the informant himself stated that he has been assaulted by spade. So there are material contradictions in the evidence of P.W.-3. It is further submitted that Doctor (P.W.-7) has stated that injury no. i to iv, vi and vii are simple in nature. Altogether 24 year has been lapsed, since then appellants have maintained peace and never involved in any other criminal activity. 10. Per contra, learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the aforesaid contentions and defended the judgment on merits. 11. I have gone through the entire record, in the light of the argument raised on behalf of both side and also perused the impugned judgment and order. 12. It appears that altogether nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution out of them, the P.W.-1 Anand Sharma and P.W.-2 Rajendra Prasad Gupta have been declared hostile by the prosecution. 13. P.W.-3 Birju Sao has supported the prosecution case and has stated that on hullah of informant, he went in the house and saw that Madan Mian and Anil Ansari were assaulting the informant by Danda and due to assault, he sustained head injury and his left hand was broken. He has clearly stated in his cross-examination that when he went to the informant’s house, he saw that accused persons were assaulting the informant. This witness has stated in his examination-in-chief that this occurrence took place at about 03:00 PM. It appears that incorrect time has been mentioned by the witness due to some confusion. 14. P.W.-4 Dashrath Prasad Gupta was declared hostile. 15. P.W.-5, Rashidan Bibi has stated that at 7 O’ Clock, she heard the hullah of her husband and saw that Majmuddin was assaulting her husband by spade on head and Anil assaulted by lathi, due to which his hands were broken. In her cross-examination, she has answered all the questions with regard to manner of assault and place of occurrence. 16. P.W.-6 Tajmul Ansari is the informant and he stated that he was planting potato in his field, at the same time, Majumddin came and started assaulting him on his head by spade. Thereafter, Anil assaulted him by lathi, due to which his left hand was broken. Roja bibi also assaulted him on his leg. On hullah, his wife and other person were came and took him to hospital for treatment. 17. P.W.-7, Dr. Sitaram Gupta, who has examined the injured (informant). According to this witness, the injured sustained following injuries:- (i) Incised wound of size 2”x1/4”x1/4” on the right parietal area of scalp (simple in nature caused by sharp cutting weapon). Page 7 of 9 (ii) A lacerated wound of size 1”x1/4”x1/4” elbow joint (simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance). (iii) A lacerated wound of size 1”x1/4”x1/4” on the lower aspect of the left jaw (simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance). (iv) Bruise of size 3”x1” on the lateral aspect of the knee joint (simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance). (v) A defused swelling with tenderness with fracture of underline bone of the left forearm, there was a fracture of the shaft of the left alna bone, which was apparent from the X-ray Plate No.-L dated 16.12.2000. This injury was grievous in nature and was caused by hard and blunt substance. (vi) Bruise 2”x1” on the left shoulder joint (simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance). (vii) Bruise 3”x1”, 2”x1”, 3”x1” on the back (simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance). 18. P.W.-8, Sunil Kumar Sharma is the co-villager of the informant. He has also deposed like a hearsay witness and P.W.-9 Dinesh Prasad Singh is a formal witness. 19. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the required intention and knowledge for constituting offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is absolutely lacking in this case, rather the offence under Section 324 of the I.P.C. is constituted against the appellant no. 1 and the offence under Sections 323 and 325 of the I.P.C. is constituted against the appellant no. 2, for which he has been facing the rigor of the trial for more than two decades and have served the imprisonment about two months. 20. In view of aforesaid discussions and reasons, conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is hereby set aside. The appellants are held guilty for the offence under Section 324 of the I.P.C. is constituted against the appellant no. 1 and the offence under Sections 323 and 325 of the I.P.C. is constituted against the appellant no. 2 for which they have already remained in custody about 2 months. Therefore, conviction of appellants for aforesaid offences is upheld, but considering the nature of offence committed by appellants, I feel inclined to reduce the sentence awarded by learned trial court to imprisonment already undergone by the appellants. 21. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence as stated above. 22. Appellant are on bail, they are discharged from the liability of their respective bail bonds. Sureties shall also be discharged. Page 9 of 9 23. 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, Ranchi. Dated: 10th January, 2025. Simran/-NAFR