2025:JHHC:32958 1 Criminal Appeal (S.J) No.609 of 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J) No.609 of 2007 ---- [Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.05.2007 passed in Sessions Case No300 of 2004, arising out of Ramgarh (Hansdiha) P.S. Case No.107 of 2002, corresponding to G.R Case No.1179 of 2002 by the Court of Sri Alok Kumar Dubey, 5th Addl. Sessions Judge, (F.T.C), Dumka] 1. Baleshwar Manjhi, Son of Lobin Manjhi 2. Upendar Manjhi, Son of Baleshwar Manjhi 3. Fagu Manjhi, Son of Halkhori Manjhi 4. Kailu Manjhi, Son of Babu Manjhi 5. Tikeshwar Manjhi, Son of Fagu Manjhi 6. Kolti Manjhi @ Polti Manjhi, Son of Sanu Manjhi All resident of Sejapahari, P.S Hansdiha, District-Dumka …. …. Appellants -Versus- The State of Jharkhand …. …. Respondent ---- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Appellants : Mr. Durga Charan Mishra, Adv. For the Respondent : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, APP {Through Video Conferencing} ---- 07/Dated: 03rd November, 2025 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. 2. The present Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.05.2007 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C), Dumka in Sessions Case No.300 of 2004 arising out of Ramgarh (Hansdiha) P.S Case No.107 of 2002, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and except appellant No.3 namely, Faghu Manjhi they have been directed to undergo rigorous 2025:JHHC:32958 2 Criminal Appeal (S.J) No.609 of 2007 imprisonment for two years each. The appellant No.3 Faghu Manjhi has been ordered to be released on probation by entering a bond of Rs.2000/- with sureties of like amount each for one year to appear and in the meantime, he has been directed to keep peace and be of good behaviour considering his old age. 3. The criminal law has been put into motion by lodging an F.I.R being Ramgarh (Hansdiha) P.S Case No.107 of 2002 against the appellants. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on dated 19.12.2002 at about 02:15 P.M fardbeyan of the informant namely, Jagdeo Kunwar was recorded by Ishwar Paswan, Sub Inspector of Hansdiha Police Station regarding the occurrence. On 19.12.2002 at about 01:00 P.M. in Jharna Bahiyar in the field of the informant ‘s adopted son, accused were tilling and he went to spread wheat seeds in the same field. Meanwhile, the accused persons armed with lathi, danda arrived there and started beating them. Baleshwar Manjhi has assaulted Santosh on his head with danda causing bleeding injury. However, Tikeshwar and Fagu Manjhi assaulted Kishore with danda. Upendra and Kailu Manjhi have assaulted the informant namely, Jagdeo Kunwar with danda and Polti Manjhi has assaulted Dhaneshwar with danda. On the sound of assault and quarrelling Makali Devi, Shobha Devi, Lalita Devi and other villagers came there. Then the accused fled away. On information, an FIR being Ramgarh (Hansdiha) P.S. Case No.107 of 2002 has been instituted under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504/34 of the IPC. 5. The police after investigation has submitted charge-sheet under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code against all the 2025:JHHC:32958 3 Criminal Appeal (S.J) No.609 of 2007 named accused upon which cognizance has been taken and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions and charge has been framed under Section 307/34 IPC to which the appellants have pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried. 6. In the present case, the prosecution has examined altogether eight witnesses during the trial to prove charges against the appellants, P.W.1 Kishore Kunwar, P.W.2 Shobha Devi, P.W.3 Chansar Kunwar, P.W.4 Makali Devi, P.W.5 Santosh Manjhi, P.W.6 Jagdeo Kunwar, who is the informant of this case, P.W.7 Kamal Chandra Kunwar and P.W.8 Dr. Chaudhary Chandra Sekhar Prasad, who is a doctor and examined the injured witnesses along with the informant. 7. P.W.6 Jagdeo Kunwar, who is the informant and deposed in the Court that on 19.12.2002, he has given fardbeyan to the Sub Inspector of the Hansidha Police Station regarding the occurrence. He proved his signature on the fardbeyan which was Exhibited-1. He stated that accused persons were tilling in the field of his adopted son and he went to spread wheat seeds in the same field. He also stated that accused have assaulted him and his sons namely, Santosh Manjhi (P.W.5) and Kishore Kunwar (P.W.1). 8. P.W.8 Dr. Choudhary Chandra Shekhar Prasad, who is the Medical Officer in PHC Saraiyahat as on 19.12.2002 and on that day he examined informant (P.W.6) and his two sons namely, Santosh Manjhi (P.W.5) and Kishore Kunwar (P.W.1) and also examined Chansar Kunwar (P.W.3). He deposed that no such injuries on the person of either Jagdeo Kunwar (P.W.6) or Chansar Kunwar (P.W.3). P.W8 has opined that the injuries on all the 2025:JHHC:32958 4 Criminal Appeal (S.J) No.609 of 2007 injured were simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. Injury reports are Exhibited as Exts.2 to 2/3 respectively. 9. P.W.1 namely, Kishore Kunwar, P.W.5 namely, Santosh Manjhi and P.W.6 namely, Jagdeo Kunwar (informant) are the injured victims and their injuries have been proved by P.W.8 namely, Dr. Chandra Sekhar Prasad. 10. P.W.7 namely, Kamal Chandra Kunwar is the formal witness, who has proved the fardbeyan Ext.1/1. P.W.2 namely, Shobha Devi, who is the wife of Chansar Kunwar (P.W.3) and P.W.3 namely, Chansar Kunar, who is the another son of the informant and P.W.4 namely, Makali Devi, who is the wife of the informant are not the eye-witnesses, but they were present at the place of occurrence. 11. In this case, although Investigation Officer has not been examined and all the witnesses are close family members of victims. No independent witness examined. But, there is sufficient material to substantiate the fact that the victims were assaulted while they were doing the field work. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the conviction under Section 324 /34 of the Indian Penal Code is bad in law as :- (i) No deadly weapon has been used in the alleged crime. (ii) There is no grievous injury. 13. It has been further submitted that the ingredients of Section 324 IPC has not been proved rather at best it is a case under Section 323 of the IPC. Further, the appellants have remained in custody for about five days and the incident is of the year 2002 and thus, they have suffered mentally and financially for a long period. 2025:JHHC:32958 5 Criminal Appeal (S.J) No.609 of 2007 14. On the basis of above, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the order of conviction may be converted into Section 323 IPC and further, sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants as there is a land dispute between the parties and due to which, there was scuffle between the parties. There is case and counter case also. 15. Learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence and it has been submitted that there is material to suggest that the victim party has been assaulted and they have sustained injury also. 16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal the records, it appears that:- (i) Although, charge has been framed under Section 307/34 IPC, but the order of conviction is under Section 324 IPC. (ii) Though ingredients of Section 324 IPC is not available, as no deadly weapon has been used in the crime rather only lathi has been used which is a common thing held in the hand of every villagers. (iii) There is no repetition of blow and further, as per the doctor i.e., medical evidence the injury is simple in nature. (iv) There is a land dispute between the parties and there is case and counter case also. 17. Considering the above facts, the judgment of conviction dated 16.05.2007 under Section 324/34 passed by the 5th Addl. Sessions Judge, (FTC) Dumka is hereby, modified to the extent that it is converted to Section 2025:JHHC:32958 6 Criminal Appeal (S.J) No.609 of 2007 323 IPC. So far as the sentencing part is concerned, it is hereby, reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants. 18. In the facts and materials available on record, this Court interfered with the impugned judgment only to the extent of Section 324 IPC and modified the sentence by reducing it to the period already undergone by the appellants. Accordingly, the present Criminal Appeal No.609 of 2007 is, partly allowed and to the extent mentioned above. 19. Since the appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. 20. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this judgment. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Dated: 03rd November, 2025 Raja/- Uploaded