2025:JHHC:21523 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.1382 of 2016 Ghanshyam Lohra, S/o Late Mahgu Lohra @ Mahangu Lohara, R/o Village- Narsingpur, PO- Rerwa, PS- Kamdara, District- Gumla. .... .. ... Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Jharkhand. .. ... ...Opp. Party(s) ........... CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ......... For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Baleshwar Yadav, Advocate For the State : Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, APP …... 09/ 01.08.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 1. The instant Cr. Revision has been preferred against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge, Gumla, whereby and whereunder, the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court in Spt. S.T. Case No.114 of 2006 under Sections 341/34, 342/34, 323/34, 307/34, 387/34 and 506/34 has been affirmed and the petitioner has been sentenced to various terms of imprisonment with direction that all the sentences will run concurrently. 2. Fardbeyan of Malar Oraon is the basis of the prosecution case. As per the FIR, it is alleged that on 20.12.2005, he was returning from the local market to his home with his younger brother, Punai Oraon, as well as with one Narayan Lohara, Sukhu Oraon and one Mundala Oraon. At around 6.30 O’clock in the evening near Joria Karam Dand, they were intercepted by Kali Sahu, Sridhan Singh, Sudarshan Sahu, Ghanshyam Lohara and by two other unknown persons who came there by two motorcycles. Kali Sahu abused him and assaulted with a rod near his ear resulting in bleeding injury and in the meanwhile, Kali Sahu then caught-hold of him and he was brought near the field of Kathaitpur Village where he was assaulted by accused persons conjointly and demanded money as he was supervising a contract work. They demanded Rs.50,000/- and threatened him with life, if the said payment is not made. After the incidence, he and Tuneshwar Oraon were also assaulted. 3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Malar Oraon, Sisai P.S. Case No.138 of 2005 was registered under Sections 341, 342, 323, 387, 2025:JHHC:21523 2 506, 307/34 IPC against six named accused persons, Prabhat Munda, Kali Sahu, Sudarshan Sahu, Sridhan Sahu, Surat Singh and Ghanshyam Lohara and two unknown persons. 4. Police on investigation found the case to be true and submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons including the petitioner. After cognizance, the accused persons were put on trial under Sections 341, 342, 323, 387, 354, 504 and 307/34 IPC. 5. The trial of the petitioner was split up from the other accused person and he was separately put on trial in S.T. No.114 of 2006. 6. Altogether nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and the relevant documents including injury report, FIR were adduced into evidence. 7. The judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court has been affirmed by the appellate Court against which the instant Cr. Revision has been preferred before this Court. 8. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the evidence of the injured (PW.3), the accused persons were variously armed with deadly weapon and intercepted and assaulted him. The injury reports have been marked as Exhibit 4 and 4/1 respectively. None of the injuries are grievous in nature. Had they any intention to cause death, they had ample opportunity to inflict grievous injury. As such, the offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the materials on record, I find merit in the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the charge under Section 307 IPC is not proved. In order to prove the charge under Section 307 IPC, it is necessary for the prosecution to establish that the accused persons were actuated with intention to cause death. 10. The informant was at the mercy of the accused persons who had intercepted him and conjointly assaulted and they had opportunity to finish him off. Injuries are all simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance, which does not disclose an intention to cause death. Therefore, offence under Section 307 IPC will not be made out. Under the circumstances, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence under Section 307 IPC is set aside. 2025:JHHC:21523 3 11. So far, the offences under the others sections of the IPC are concerned, there is no infirmity in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. The appellant has already served more than two years nine months, more than half of the term of sentence imposed under Sections 341, 342, 323, 387, 506, 307/34 IPC. Cr. Revision is partly allowed. Let the LCR be sent to the concerned Trial Court at once. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/-