2025:JHHC:33938 1 Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.1612 of 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J) No.1612 of 2004 [Against the judgment of conviction dated 20.07.2004 and order of sentence dated 24.07.2004 passed in Sessions Case No.72 of 2004, arising out of Mufassil P.S. Case No.101 of 2003, corresponding to G.R Case No.391 of 2003 by the Court of Sri Raghubar Dayal, learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-II, Chaibasa] ---- Bir Singh Karji, Son of Late Ram Karji, resident of Village-Singh Pokharia, P.S. Muffasil, District-Singhbhum West …. …. Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand …. …. Respondent ---- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Appellant : Mr. Binod Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. V.S Sahay, A.P.P ---- 07/Dated: 13th November, 2025 1. Heard Mr. Binod Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned counsel for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 20.07.2004 and order of sentence dated 24.07.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-II, Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No.72 of 2004, arising out of Mufassil P.S. Case No.101 of 2003, corresponding to G.R Case No.391 of 2003 whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. 3. The criminal law has been put into motion by lodging an F.I.R being Mufassil P.S Case No.101 of 2003 against the appellant. 4. The F.I.R has been lodged on the fardbeyan of the informant namely, Kanchan Kalundia. The brief fact of the case is that on 17.09.2003 at about 05:00 A.M., the informant and injured was sitting at his door. Suddenly, the accused came there and assaulted the informant at his head. When the informant tried to save and resist the attack, he sustained injury on his left palm, from which blood was started oozing out. Other Villagers reached at the spot and then the accused fled away. After the assault, the injured informant was taken to Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa for treatment. 2025:JHHC:33938 2 Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.1612 of 2004 5. The F.I.R has been lodged under Sections 323, 324 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code, but the charge has been framed under Section 307 of the IPC. After conclusion of the trial, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. To substantiate the prosecution story, altogether six witnesses have been examined. P.W.1 Lilina @ Nilina Bahakalundia is the wife of the informant/injured, P.W.2 Suban Karji, who has been tendered, P.W.3 Kanchan Kalundia who is the informant and injured, P.W.4 Suresh Chandra Gope, P.W.5 Awedesh Kumar Pandey, who is the I.O. of this case and P.W.6 Dr. B.K. Sahani. 7. P.W.1 Lilina @ Nilina Bahakalundia is the wife of the informant. She has stated in her examination in chief that the occurrence took place on 17.09.2003 at around 05:00 A.M. She was present along with her husband and other family members at the house. Her husband was sitting in Angan. At that time, the appellant came there having iron barchhi in his hand and assaulted her husband. During assault, her husband tried to defend himself and sustained injury to his left palm. She raised alarm due to that other family members and villagers came there, after which the accused fled away. Her husband was taken to the hospital for treatment then referred to Ranchi for further treatment. She identified the accused in the dock. In her cross-examination, she has stated that the place where her husband was sitting and the occurrence took place can be seen from outside. She has also stated that she was washing utensils at a short distance from the place of occurrence, in the courtyard, and her mother-in-law and father-in-law were inside the house. Her husband sustained injury at his left palm and the persons from nearby came there. The accused then fled away. 8. P.W.2- Suban Karji has been tendered. 9. P.W.3 Kanchan Kalundia, the informant and injured. He has stated that on 17 September 2003 at about 5 A.M., he was in his courtyard with his wife and children when Bir Singh Karji arrived there with an iron barchhi and struck him on the head, causing injury. When he tried to defend himself, the accused attacked again due to that he sustained injury on his left palm. He raised alarm and the neighbours gathered there. He was then taken by Suresh Chandra Gope on a motorcycle to Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa, where the police recorded his statement (Fardbayan), which he proved and also identified in the Court. He 2025:JHHC:33938 3 Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.1612 of 2004 was later referred to Ranchi for further treatment and remained hospitalized from 17.09.2003 to 22.09.2003. In cross-examination, he denied having any quarrel or dispute with the accused on the day of occurrence. He stated that the accused fled away after the assault and was not caught by the villagers. He told that blood did not fall on the ground, but his clothes were blood stained. He confirmed that his wife witnessed the incident. 10. P.W.4 Suresh Chandra Gope, who has stated in his examination in chief that on 17 September 2003 at around 5 A.M., he was at home when he heard alarm and went to Kanchan Kalundia’s house. He saw crowd gathered there and noticed that Kanchan Kalundia had a head injury from which blood was oozing. Upon asking, Kanchan informed him that he was assaulted by Bir Singh Karji. He carried Kanchan Kalundia to the hospital. In court, he has also identified the accused. In cross-examination, he has stated that he did not see the occurrence. 11. P.W.5 Awadhesh Kumar Pandey is the Investigating Officer of this case. He has stated that after taking charge of the investigation, he went to Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa and recorded restatement of the informant and other witnesses. He has also visited the place of occurrence. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had not seized any blood stained clothes. 12. P.W.6 Dr. B.K. Sahani is the doctor of this case, who has examined the victim. He has stated that he was posted at Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa as Medical Officer on that day. He has proved the injury report which is marked as Ext.5. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the injury was simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance and no fracture of scalp bone. 13. Referring to the above evidence materials available on record, learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the judgment of conviction on the following grounds:- (i) In the F.I.R, the victim has not conceived any intention to kill rather only assault has been attributed. Thus, intention is missing. (ii) The weapon used in the alleged crime is hard and blunt substance and injury is simple in nature as disclosed by the doctor on the basis of x-ray report. 14. By referring the above evidence brought on record, it has been submitted that the ingredient of Section 307 IPC is missing in the present case as neither 2025:JHHC:33938 4 Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.1612 of 2004 there is any intention, nor weapon as well as injury justify the alleged crime. At best, it is the case under Section 323 IPC. Further, the appellant has remained in custody for more than 03 months. 15. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of conviction and it has been submitted that since the head has been targeted and as such, the offence under Section 307 is made out. 16. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the records, it appears that:- (i) The victim himself has not conceived any intention to kill. (ii) Neither injury, nor weapon used in the alleged crime as per the evidence of the doctor available on record justified the conviction under Section 307 of the IPC. (iii) But injury is there and the assault has been attributed upon the appellant. The injured witness and the other materials available on record clearly suggest commission of crime by this appellant. 17. So far as the conviction under Section 307 IPC is concerned, it transpires from the deposition of Doctor, who has examined the injured person and found that the injury was simple in nature and it was not sufficient to cause death and as such, this Court is on opinion that the conviction under Section 307 IPC should be converted in Section 323 IPC and accordingly ordered. 18. With the aforesaid observation, the sentencing part is modified to the period already undergone by the appellant. 19. In the result, the Criminal Appeal stands partly allowed. 20. Since the appellant is on bail and as such, he is discharged from the liability of the bail bonds. 21. 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: 13th November, 2025 Raja/- Uploaded