2025:JHHC:33775 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.743 of 2004 --------- [Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 29.03.2004, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court – III, Deoghar, in Sessions Case No.110 of 2002/ 132 of 2002 (Arising out of Sonaraithari P.S. Case No.80 of 2001 corresponding to G.R. No.572 of 2001)] --------- 1. Jai Narayan Mahto, S/o Huro Mahto. 2. Jawahar Mahto, S/o Tarni Mahto. 3. Santosh Mahto, S/o Upendra Mahto 4. Yugendra Mahto, S/o Upendra Mahto All residents of Gorapatti P.S. - Sonaraithari, Sub- division and District - Deoghar. ….. Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent --------- PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR --------- For the Appellants : Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, Advocate Ms. Vinita Prakash, Advocate Mr. Pratik Singh, Advocate Mr. Prathik, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P --------- Order No.11/ Dated: 12 th November, 2025 1. Vide order dated 11.11.2019, the present criminal appeal stands abated so far as appellants namely, Upendra Mahto and Kaleshwar Mahto are concerned. Thus, the present appeal survives only with respect to four appellants, namely, Jai Narayan Mahto, Jawahar Mahto, Santosh Mahto and Yugendra Mahto. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Special P.P 3. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.03.2004, - 1 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.743 of 2004 2025:JHHC:33775 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court – III, Deoghar, in Sessions Case No.110 of 2002/ 132 of 2002, arising out of Sonaraithari P.S. Case No.80 of 2001 (G.R. No.572 of 2001), whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 325/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and have been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. 4. The criminal law has been put into motion by lodging an F.I.R being Sonaraithari P.S. Case No.80 of 2001 against the appellants under Sections 341/ 323/ 324/ 307/34 I.PC. The F.I.R has been lodged on the fardbeyan of informant namely, Maheshwar Yadav (P.W.-8). The brief facts of the case, as disclosed in the F.I.R., is that on on 13.9.2001 at about 2.00 P.M. Maheshwar Yadav, informant (P.W.-8) gave fardbeyan before Officer -in- Charge at Sonaraithai Police Station that today at about 8.00 A.M. his son Trilochan Yadav and his brother Baleshwar Prasad Yadav (P.W.-5) were ploughing there bari (field). In the meantime, accused persons Upendra Mahto (now deceased), Kaleshwar Mahto (now deceased), Mahendra Mahto, Jai Narayan Mahto, Yugendra Mahto, Jawahar Mahto, Pokhan Yadav and Santosh Mahto of Gorapatti, P.S. Sonaraithari, Dist. Deoghar came there and started assaulting his brother Baleshwar Prasad Yadav (P.W.-5), Mangar Mahto (P.W.-1) cousin brother of the informant and the informant himself with lathi and danda with an intention to kill them. The other family members of - 2 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.743 of 2004 2025:JHHC:33775 the informant came there to rescue from the house and the accused persons assaulted them also as a result of which they also sustained injury. The accused persons wanted to grab the land of the informant for which this occurrence took place. 5. On the basis of the said fardbeyan, the police instituted the F.I.R and after investigation, has submitted charge-sheet against six accused persons for the offence under Sections 341/ 323/ 324/ 307/34 I.P.C. Upon which cognizance has been taken and charge has been framed on 04.12.2002 under Sections 307 /34 I.P.C and the case has been committed to the court of Sessions to which the appellants have pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried. 6. For substantiating the prosecution story, altogether nine witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. The defence has also examined two witnesses as (D.W.-1 & D.W.-2) 7. P.W.-1, Mangar Yadav, is brother of the informant and an injured witness. The injury is simple in nature. He has supported the factum of fight between the parties. 8. P.W.-2, Mohini Devi, is aunt of the informant. She has also suffered injury, but the same is simple in nature. She has supported the prosecution story. 9. P.W.-3, Kalawati Devi, is the mother of the informant. She has also suffered injury, but the same is also simple in nature. She has supported the prosecution story. 10. P.W.-4, Kalshi Devi, is the wife of P.W.-1. She has also - 3 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.743 of 2004 2025:JHHC:33775 suffered injury, but the same is also simple in nature. She has supported the prosecution story. 11. P.W.-5, Baleshwar Yadav, is the brother of the informant. He has suffered injuries and one of the injuries is said to be grievous, but the X-ray report of the same has not been brought on record. He has also supported the prosecution story. 12. P.W.-6, Tahadi Mahto, is an independent witness and he has been declared hostile. 13. P.W.-7, Rameshwar Mahto, is a doctor, who has examined the injured persons and according to him, all the injuries are simple in nature save and except one of the injury sustained by P.W.-5 namely, Baleshwar Yadav, on his shoulder, has been found grievous, referring to the X-ray report, but the said x-ray report has not been brought on record. 14. P.W.-8, Maheshwar Yadav, is the informant of the case and he has also suffered simple injury. He has also supported the prosecution story, as has been disclosed in the F.I.R. 15. P.W.-9, Ranjeet Roshan, is the Investigating Officer of the case. In cross-examination, he has admitted that there is case and counter case between the parties. He has also admitted that he has not made any investigation or collected any material so far as the title of the land is concerned. It has also been admitted by the Investigating Officer that both the parties have suffered injury. - 4 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.743 of 2004 2025:JHHC:33775 16. Further several documents have been exhibited by the prosecution such as Ext.-1 to 1/5 i.e. the injury report. Ext.-2 is the fardbeyan, Ext.2/1 is the endorsement on the fardbeyan and Ext.-3 is the formal F.I.R. 17. Ext.-3 has been perused by this Court and comparing it with Ext.-B, brought on record by the defence, clearly suggests that the F.IR has been manipulated to make the present F.I.R as the first one. Thus, the honesty of the investigating agency is doubtful. Further, the way, the Investigating Officer has conducted the investigation, also creates doubt, as no material has been brought on record, so far as the possession of land is concerned. The comparison of F.I.R has created doubt so far as the intention of the investigating agency is concerned, and this itself sufficient to demolish the case of the prosecution. 18. The defence witnesses have been examined as D.W.-1, namely, Kiti Mahto and D.W.-2, namely, Kali Mahto. They have stated regarding possession of the land. They have deposed that the land in question was in cultivating possession of the present appellants. 19. The defence has also exhibited several documents such as Ext.-A to A/2, which are the rent receipts of the disputed land. Ext.-E, is khatiyan, suggesting that the appellants are the title holder of the land. Extc.-B, C & D are formal F.I.R, fardbeyan and charge-sheet respectively, lodged by the appellants with regard to the said incident. - 5 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.743 of 2004 2025:JHHC:33775 20. The trial Court, after evaluating the evidence and material available on record, has convicted the appellants under Section 325/ 34 I.P.C. However, the charges under Sections 307/ 34 has not been proved against them. 21. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the record, this Court finds the following facts, which are relevant for consideration of the present case :- (a) there is manipulation in the F.I.R and the present F.I.R has been deliberately made as first one. (b) there is material on record to suggest that the rent receipts and Khatiyan are in the name of the appellants and this fact has neither been brought on record by the prosecution nor any investigation has been made deliberately by the Investigating Officer. (c) the Investigating Officer has admitted that both the parties have sustained injuries. He has stated that the land in question, is in possession of the informant's side, without any basis or investigation., (d) all the injuries sustained are simple in nature, save and except one injury, caused upon the shoulder of Baleshwar Yadav (P.W.-5), but there is no X-ray report available on record and further, the doctor has stated that he does not remember - 6 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.743 of 2004 2025:JHHC:33775 anything. (e) learned trial court has declared the present appellants, as Aggressor, on the basis of the occular evidence, brought on record by the prosecution, without considering the defence documents and evidence brought on record. (f) it is settled principle of law that if the prosecution is malicious in nature or if the conduct of the I.O is not up to the mark, then a doubt will be created, so far as the prosecution case is concerned, and the benefit of doubt will ertainly go in favour of the accused/ appellants. (g) the opinion of the doctor has got no value, if the same is not supported by any materials. In the present case, one of the injury has been shown as grievous, but the X-ray report is not available on record. (h) the comparison of the F.I.R., clearly shows that there is case and counter case. (i) the documentary evidence brought on record as well as the statement of the defence witnesses (D.Ws.-1 & 2), clearly suggests that the appellants are in cultivating possession of the land. 22. Thus, it is clear that a scuffle has taken place between the parties and the present appellants are not the Aggressor, rather the informant parties are the Aggressor and also, there is no material on record to suggest that any - 7 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.743 of 2004 2025:JHHC:33775 injury is grievous in nature and as such the conviction of the appellants under Section 325/ 34 is not sustainable in eye of law. Accordingly, the same is, hereby, set aside. 23. However, there is enough materials available on record, suggesting that there was fight between the parties and as such the case will come under Section 334/ 34 I.P.C. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants is converted under Sections 334/ 34 I.P.C. 24. So far as, the sentencing part is concerned, the appellants are directed to deposit Rs.500/- (Five Hundred) each, as fine, in the court concerned, within one month. 25. With the above modification in the judgment of conviction, the present appeal stands allowed in part. 26. The appellants are on bail, hence, they are discharged from the liability of bail bond. 27. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this Judgment. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, the 12th November, 2025 Ravi-Chandan/- NAFR Uploaded on 17.11.2025 - 8 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.743 of 2004