2026:JHHC:14379 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.303 of 2025 .... 1. Lalu Mandal, aged about 24 years, son of Duryodhan Mandal 2. Duryodhan Mandal, aged about 65 years, son of Late Rameshwar Mandal 3. Pawan Mandal, aged about 32 years, son of Duryodhan Mandal 4. Soudagar Mandal, aged about 35 years, son of Duryodhan Mandal All are residents of Village Khaira, P.O. and P.S. Sarath, District-Deoghar, Jharkhand .… Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand .... Respondent .... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR For the Appellants : Mr. A.K.Choudhary, Adv. For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Arwind Kumar, Adv. .... 06/12.05.2026 1. Heard the parties. 2. The present criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 10.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Madhupur in S.T. Case No.469 of 2023, arising out of Sarath P.S. Case No.34 of 2023, whereby the appellant No.1 has been convicted for the offence under Sections 307, 323/34 and 341/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine further sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months for the offence under Section 307 of IPC, further sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months for the offence under Section 323 of IPC and fifteen days S.I. for the offence under Section 341 of IPC, whereas appellant Nos.2 to 4 have been convicted for the offence under Sections 323/34 and 341/34 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo S.I. for six months for the offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC, further sentenced to undergo S.I. for fifteen days for the offence under Section 341 read with Section 34 of IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that according to the informant, Kari Devi, on 07.03.2023 at about 7:00 A.M., her husband, Sitaram Mandal, was installing a water pump at a government well for the purpose of irrigating crops. In the meantime, Lalu Mandal, Pawan Mandal, Soudagar Mandal, all sons of Duryodhan Mandal, along with Duryodhan Mandal, son of Late Rameshwar Mandal, arrived there armed with weapons and declared that they would not allow irrigation from the said well. When her husband protested, Lalu Mandal 2026:JHHC:14379 2 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.303 of 2025 allegedly assaulted him with an axe on his forehead, causing injuries. When the informant attempted to save her husband, the accused persons also assaulted and injured her. Her husband became unconscious at the place of occurrence. Upon her raising alarm, villagers assembled there, whereupon the accused persons fled away after allegedly snatching the silver chain from her neck. Thereafter, with the help of villagers, she took her husband to Deoghar for treatment at Care Hospital, where he was stated to be struggling between life and death. It has further been alleged that the accused persons also fractured the hand of Dasrath Mandal when he intervened to pacify the dispute. 4. On the basis of the written report of the informant, the present criminal case has been put into motion by lodging an FIR being Sarath P.S. Case No.34 of 2023 dated 07.03.2023 under Sections 323/ 325/ 307/ 379/34 of IPC against the appellants. 5. The police after investigation had submitted charge-sheet under Sections 323/ 307/ 325/ 506/34 of IPC and charge has been framed on 25.11.2023 against the aforesaid accused under Sections 341, 323, 379, 307, 506 and 325 r/w 34 of IPC and ultimately on culmination of the trial the appellants have been convicted under Sections 341/34, 323/34, 379/34, 307/34, 506/34, 325/34 of IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To substantiate the prosecution story, altogether eleven witnesses have been examined. Their brief depositions are as follows:- P.W.-1 Sudhir Mandal is the son of the informant. He has deposed that on 07.03.2023, a dispute arose between the informant’s family and the accused persons, namely Lalu Mandal, Soudagar Mandal, Pawan Mandal and Duryodhan Mandal, regarding installation of a water pump at a government well. The accused persons allegedly came armed with lathis and a tangi, abused the informant’s husband Sitaram Mandal, and later attacked him near his house. Lalu Mandal allegedly assaulted him on the forehead with a tangi, while Pawan Mandal also assaulted him after while he fell down. Soudagar Mandal allegedly assaulted the informant and injured Kari Devi, and fractured the hand of Dashrath Mandal who had intervened in the matter. Sitaram Mandal sustained serious head injuries and was treated at Sarath, Deoghar and later at Patna. The witness further alleged that the accused persons continued to threaten the family after the incident. The witness 2026:JHHC:14379 3 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.303 of 2025 identified some of the accused persons in Court and stated that the police had recorded his statement. In cross examination-This witness has stated that both the parties are agnates and there was a long-standing dispute regarding irrigation and use of the government well. He admitted that only verbal altercation had taken place near the well and no assault occurred there. He stated that his father later sustained three bleeding injuries, one on the forehead and two in the head area, while his mother and Dashrath Mandal also suffered injuries. A counter-case filed by the accused persons regarding the same incident is also pending in Court. This witness has further stated that the villagers gathered after hearing alarm and the accused persons initially obstructed the vehicle taking the injured to hospital. His father became unconscious and regained consciousness at Deoghar. He denied the defence suggestion that his father had accidentally fallen while carrying the pump or that the prosecution party had assaulted the accused persons. P.W.-2, Dashrath Mandal, is the nephew of injured. He has deposed that the occurrence has took place on 07.03.2023 between 7:00 AM and 8:00 AM while he was at his house. On hearing alarm near the house of Sitaram Mandal, he went there and saw the accused persons namely Lalu Mandal, Soudagar Mandal, Pawan Mandal and Duryodhan Mandal jointly assaulting Sitaram Mandal with lathis and sticks. When he intervened to rescue him, he was also assaulted and sustained injury on his left hand, which got fractured. According to him, Soudagar Mandal had assaulted him with a lathi. He further stated that Kari Devi has also sustained injury on her hand, though he did not see who had assaulted her. Sitaram Mandal was treated at Deoghar and remained admitted in ICU. This witness has identified accused Soudagar Mandal and Duryodhan Mandal present in Court and also identified accused Lalu Mandal appearing through video conferencing. In cross examination- This witness has stated that Sitaram Mandal is his elder uncle and Kari Devi his elder aunt. On hearing alarm, he rushed to their house and found Sitaram Mandal in an injured and unconscious condition, after which he was taken inside the house and villagers gathered there. He stated that the accused persons were known to him and admitted that there had been an earlier dispute regarding irrigation from the well. 2026:JHHC:14379 4 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.303 of 2025 He further stated that he had not seen any injuries on the accused persons and denied the defence suggestion that he was falsely supporting his relatives or that the injuries were caused due to accidental fall near the well. P.W.-3, Karu Mandal is relative to injured and he has deposed that the dispute arose over installation of a pump for irrigation on 07.03.2023, following which, the accused persons allegedly came armed with lathis and a tangi. According to the witness, Lalu Mandal assaulted Sitaram Mandal on the forehead with a tangi, causing him to become unconscious, while Kari Devi and Dashrath Mandal were also assaulted during the incident. This witness has further stated that the accused persons initially obstructed the vehicle carrying the injured for treatment, after which Sitaram Mandal was taken to Deoghar Hospital and remained admitted for about eight days. He has identified the accused persons in Court and through video conferencing. In cross Examination- He has stated that the parties are related and there is a pending counter-case regarding the same dispute. He has admitted that Soudagar Mandal had also filed a case and that he had seen injuries on the person of Soudagar Mandal, but not on Sitaram Mandal. He stated that Kari Devi has got injuries on her forehead and finger and the villagers arrived only after the occurrence. He further denied the defence suggestion that Kari Devi had filed a false case to protect themselves after assaulting Soudagar Mandal. P.W.-4, Baldeo Mandal is a co-villager and he has deposed that on hearing alarm on 07.03.2023, he went to the house of Sitaram Mandal and saw blood coming from his forehead, while the accused persons were standing there with lathis. He had heard that the dispute arose over irrigation in the field but had not personally witnessed the incident there. He further stated that Sitaram Mandal was taken for medical treatment and that Kari Devi had sustained injury on her hand, though he did not know who assaulted her. The witness identified some of the accused persons in the court. In cross examination- This witness has stated that the accused persons were known to him as co-villagers and he returned home after the alarm. He did not accompanied the injured for treatment and had not seen any injury on 2026:JHHC:14379 5 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.303 of 2025 Soudagar Mandal. He further denied having any land dispute with Soudagar Mandal or falsely supporting Kari Devi. P.W.-5, Mukesh Mandal is the nephew of the informant and he has stated that on hearing alarm, he went near the well and saw injuries on both Sitaram Mandal and Soudagar Mandal during a dispute over irrigation. He did not personally witness the assault but later heard that Lalu Mandal had assaulted Sitaram Mandal. He further stated that her aunt-Kari Devi had suffered minor injuries and the injured persons were treated at hospital. He has identified the accused persons in the court and through video conferencing. In cross examination- He has stated that Kari Devi was his elder aunt and that he had personally seen only Sitaram Mandal injured, while injuries to Soudagar Mandal were based on what he had heard from others. He identified the accused persons as co-villagers and denied falsely supporting Kari Devi due to their relationship. P.W.-6, Salkhu Mandal is a co-villager and he has stated that he had not personally seen the assault but found Sitaram Mandal unconscious with bleeding injuries and Kari Devi bleeding from her forehead and nose. He stated that Kari Devi told him about the incident occurred over a dispute regarding installation of a pump for irrigation. This witness has further stated that both injured persons got medical treatment and he has identified the accused persons in Court and through video conferencing. In cross examination- He has stated that there are about 70 houses in the village. When he went near the injured persons, Mukesh Mandal and Baldev Mandal were also with him. He further stated that he only saw the injured persons there and no other persons were present except some children. P.W.-7, Vishwambhar Vishwakarma is the Investigating Officer and he has stated that on 07.03.2023 he was posted as Assistant Sub-Inspector at Sarath Police Station and was entrusted with the investigation of Sarath P.S. Case No. 29/2023. He stated that he re-recorded the statement of informant Kari Devi, who supported the allegations made in the FIR, and also examined witnesses namely Sudhir Mandal, Karu Mandal and Dashrath Mandal, all of whom supported the prosecution case. 2026:JHHC:14379 6 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.303 of 2025 He has further deposed that he inspected the place of occurrence at village Khaira, described its boundaries, and confirmed that the alleged assault on Kari Devi and her husband Sitaram Mandal had taken place there. He issued requisitions for medical examination of the injured persons and sent them to CHC, Sarath Hospital. He also conducted raids for arrest of the accused persons on 08.03.2023 and 12.03.2023, but they were found absconding. He further stated that he received supervisory notes from senior police officers, obtained the injury reports of both injured persons from CHC, Sarath on 29.03.2023, and later handed over further investigation due to his transfer for training. The Investigating Officer proved the injury examination requisitions (Exts-P1 & P2), FIR registration (Ext.-P3) and formal FIR prepared during investigation (Ext.-P4). In cross examination-He has admitted that the case diary did not mention the time or place of recording the re-statement of informant Kari Devi, nor the time of recording statements of witnesses Sudhir Mandal, Karu Mandal and Dashrath Mandal. He further admitted that the date and time of inspection of the place of occurrence were also not mentioned in the case diary and he had not recorded the statements of boundary witnesses of the place of occurrence. He has also admitted that a counter-case regarding the same occurrence was investigated by him, but after the accused persons obtained bail, he did not record any defence statement from them. He has stated that the concerned police officials were still in service and denied the suggestion that the investigation was defective or that the charge-sheet had been submitted in haste manner. P.W.-8, Kari Devi is the informant and she has supported the prosecution story. She has stated that about one year and four months prior to her deposition, at around 8:00 AM, her husband Sitaram Mandal had gone to a government well with a pump for irrigation. According to her, accused Lalu Mandal objected to installation of the pump, leading to an altercation. She then brought her husband back home, but accused Lalu Mandal and Soudagar Mandal allegedly followed them to the house. She has further stated that Lalu Mandal assaulted her husband with an axe on his head, nose and forehead, causing him to fall down. When she intervened to rescue him, accused Duryodhan Mandal and Soudagar Mandal allegedly assaulted her as well. She further alleged that Duryodhan Mandal 2026:JHHC:14379 7 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.303 of 2025 snatched her gold chain weighing about five bhari and assaulted her with an iron rod, causing bleeding injuries on her hand and forehead. She has further stated that after the occurrence she went to Sarath Police Station and thereafter underwent treatment at Deoghar Hospital. She identified accused Lalu Mandal and Pawan Mandal in Court and stated that she could identify the remaining accused persons. She also proved her thumb impression on the written complaint filed in connection with the case. In cross examination- She has admitted that she could not describe the exact boundaries of the place where her husband fell unconscious. She stated that her husband remained unconscious for two days and was taken to Sarath Hospital by Karu Mandal and Dashrath Mandal, from where he was referred to Deoghar for further treatment. According to her, treatment at Deoghar started around 10:00 AM and they returned after about ten days. She further stated that she had seen her husband’s injuries at the place where he had fallen. She has also admitted that there had been a dispute between the parties regarding irrigation of water and the accused persons had also filed a counter- case against her husband, which is still pending. She stated that the government well was situated about one kilometre from the house and that she did not know on whose land it stood. She further stated that she herself had also undergone medical treatment and was discharged after seven days. She has stated that the case was lodged on the same evening after the occurrence, after returning from Deoghar. She denied the defence suggestion that they had assaulted Soudagar Mandal and she and her husband had sustained injuries due to falling while fleeing after assaulting him, and further denied filing a false case or giving false evidence. P.W.-9, Suresh Kumar Rawani, A.S.I., is the second and final Investigating Officer and he has stated that he took over investigation of the case on 02.04.2023 while posted as ASI at Sarath Police Station. He has stated that the case had been instituted on the written complaint of Kari Devi against accused Lalu Mandal, Pawan Mandal, Soudagar Mandal and Duryodhan Mandal. Upon reviewing the investigation records and supervisory reports, he found the allegations under Sections 323, 325, 307, 506/34 IPC to be true against the accused persons. He further stated that on 03.04.2023 he conducted a raid at the in-laws’ house of accused Pawan Mandal and arrested him. Pawan Mandal claimed 2026:JHHC:14379 8 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.303 of 2025 innocence in his defence statement. The Investigating Officer also examined witnesses Mukesh Mandal, Sarkhu Mandal and Baldev Mandal, who supported the prosecution case. He has stated that some accused persons were later released on bail, while accused Lalu Mandal surrendered before the Court. After receiving final supervisory reports and orders from superior police officers, he has completed the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet No. 77/2023 dated 08.06.2023 against all four accused persons under Sections 323, 325, 307, 506/34 IPC. In cross examination- He has admitted that he started writing the case diary from 03.04.2023 and that the statements of witnesses Mukesh Mandal, Sarkhu Mandal and Baldev Mandal were computer-typed without mentioning the date, time or place of recording. He further stated that except for arresting one accused person, he mainly completed the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet as per directions of superior officers. He also admitted that although he orally informed the family members about the arrest of the accused, he did not mention this fact in the case diary. He further stated that he did not record defence statements of the other accused persons. However, he denied the defence suggestion that the investigation was defective or that the charge-sheet had been submitted in haste manner. P.W.-10, Dr. Pragya Bhagwati is the medical officer, she examined the patient Sitaram Mandal aged about 60 years male S/o- Late Janki Mandal, R/o- Khera Sarath, on 07.03.2023 and found the injuries grievous caused by hard and blunt substance. She has also examined another injured, namely, Kari Devi and found the injuries simple in nature caused by hard and blunt object. In cross examination- The doctor has stated that the lacerated injury and linear undisplaced fracture could also be caused by a fall and impact against a hard blunt object. She has admitted that his opinion was based on the CT scan report of a private agency and that she was not a radiologist. She has further stated that the CT scan had not been conducted in her presence. The doctor also stated that abrasions are generally superficial injuries and may occur for various reasons. She has admitted that the injured person was not present before the Court during the deposition that she had not mentioned the colour of injuries in her report, and that swelling by itself is not an injury. 2026:JHHC:14379 9 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.303 of 2025 P.W.-11, Sitaram Mandal is the husband of informant and also an injured and he has stated that while installing a pump at a government well, the accused persons objected and later assaulted him near his house. According to him, Lalu Mandal struck him on the head with a tangi, causing serious bleeding injuries and unconsciousness. He further stated that the other accused persons assaulted Dashrath Mandal and Kari Devi, and that Duryodhan Mandal snatched Kari Devi’s silver chain. He has also stated that all injured persons were treated at hospital and he suffered two head injuries requiring nine stitches. He has identified the accused persons in Court. In cross examination he has stated that the accused persons are co- villagers and a counter-case regarding the same incident is pending against him and his son. He has further stated that after he stopped installing the pump and returned home, the accused persons assaulted him from behind near his house, causing head injuries due to which he become unconsciousness. He further stated that he was taken to the police station and thereafter hospitalized for about eight days along with his wife. He denied the defence suggestion that he had accidentally fallen while carrying the pump or a false case had been lodged due to the water dispute. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants taking aid of Section 34 of IPC has submitted that the differential treatment has been given to the accused. The appellant No.1 has been convicted under Section 307 of IPC while the other have been convicted under Section 323 of IPC which is not permissible. Section 34 of IPC reads as under:- “34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.— When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.” 8. It clearly suggest that every person who has acted in furtherance of the common intention is equally liable. Thus, the conviction under Section 307 of IPC to the appellant No.1 is not sustainable. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, it appears that there is only one injury. Even that injury has not been declared as life threatening. 2026:JHHC:14379 10 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.303 of 2025 Thus, this Court finds that the conviction of the appellant No.1 under Section 307 of IPC is not sustainable. Accordingly, Section 307 of IPC is converted to Section 323 of IPC. 10. At this stage, learned counsel for the parties have submitted that there is a case and counter case between them and the matter has been compromised between the parties and a compromise petition has also been filed being I.A. No.3877 of 2026. 11. Since, the offence under Section 323 of IPC is compoundable, hence, the matter is, hereby, compounded and accordingly, the judgment of conviction under the said Section also set aside. 12. In view of the above, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Madhupur in S.T. Case No.469 of 2023, arising out of Sarath P.S. Case No.34 of 2023 is, hereby, quashed and set aside. 13. In the result, the present criminal appeal stands allowed and accordingly disposed of. 14. I.A. No.3877 of 2026 also stands disposed of. 15. Let the Trial Court Records be sent to the court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this judgment. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) 12.05.2026 Shahid/ Uploaded on 15.05.2026