2026:JHHC:14558 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.209 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 209 of 2009 --------- 1. Madan Yadav, son of Tuli Yadav 2. Chandra Mohan Yadav @ Chand Mohan Yadav, Son of Tuli Yadav 3. Tulsi Yadav, Son of Late Triloki Yadav 4. Bisnu Yadav, Son of Mahru Pd. Yadav All resident of village Jokela, P.s.-Saraiyahat, Sub-division & District- Dumka … … Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand …. Respondent ---------- For the Appellants : Mr. Girish Mohan Singh, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P. --------- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT ----------- Dated: 11th May, 2026 1. Heard Mr. Girish Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.P.P. 2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 19.02.2009 and order of sentence dated 20.02.2009 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Dumka in Sessions Case No.43 of 2008, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for the offences under sections 307/149, 341, 147 and 148 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years each for the offence under sections 307/149 of IPC, R.I. for three years each for the offence under section 148 of IPC and R.I. for two years each for the offence under section 147 of IPC 2026:JHHC:14558 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.209 of 2009 2 and no separate sentence has been awarded for offence under section 341 of IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Factual Matrix:- 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 04.08.2007 at about 8:00 am, the buffalo of Parwal Yadav was grazing maize crop of Saligarm Yadav, which had been objected by the informant as well as Salilgram Yadav. On the same day at about 11:00 am, while the informant and Saligram Yadav were returning to their house from their paddy field, the accused, Parwal Yadav, Chand Kishore, Sukdeo Yadav, Shyamsundar Yadav, Nilkhanth, Madan, Jamun, Chandmohan, Tuli, Chandradeo, Jyotish, Tulsi, Ram Badan, Jainarayan, Bisnu, Govind and Mahru Yadav having armed with farsa, spear and tangi hiding themselves in the maize crop have come out from the maize filed before the informant and Saligram Yadav with intention to kill them. The informant somehow managed to flee away from the place of occurrence but they surrounded Saligram Yadav and farsa blows have been inflicted upon his head, neck and hand by Chandkishore, Chandmohan, Chandradeo and Madan Yadav on instruction of accused, Tulsi Yadav and caused bleeding injury and Saligram Yadav fell down. Madan Yadav gave farsa blow on the head of Saligram resulting cutting of his right pinna. On hulla, Laxman, Nityanand, Baldeo and Paltu came there but they were also surrounded by the accused persons and instigated to 2026:JHHC:14558 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.209 of 2009 3 kill them. On instigation of Tulsi to kill Laxman, Ram Badan Yadav gave farsa blow on his head and caused head injury, Bisnu Yadav has also given farsa blow to Paltu Yadav resulting bleeding injury on his right hand. Mahru Yadav has also instigated the accused persons to kill Nityanand, then all the accused caught of him and Ram Badan gave farsa blow and caused injury on his left hand. 4. On the basis of aforesaid information, Saraiyahat P.S. Case No.113 of 2007 was instituted for the offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324 and 307 of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge- sheet was submitted against the accused persons and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions where S.C No.43 of 2008 was registered. The accused/appellants have denied the charges leveled against them and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of the trial, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants was passed, which has been assailed in this appeal. 5. Prosecution has examined altogether 8 witnesses in this case and several documentary evidences have also been adduced. 6. On the other hand, no defence witness has been examined by the defence. However, documentary evidences Ext.A- Certified copy of written application, Ext.B-Formal FIR, Saraiyahat P.S. Case No.114 of 2007 and Ext.C- Charge-sheet of G.R. Case No.1003 of 2007 have been 2026:JHHC:14558 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.209 of 2009 4 adduced by the defence. The case of defence is denial from occurrence and false implication due to grazing of maize crop by a she-buffalo. Submission on behalf of appellants:- 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that no offence under section 307 read with section 149 of IPC is made out against the appellants and there was a single injury caused by farsa on the ear of the injured, Saligram Yadav. It has been submitted that some portion of pinna was separated from the ear, which has been considered by the learned trial court to be likely to cause death and dangerous to life. At best, the case comes under section 326 of IPC only against Madan Yadav (appellant No.1). It is further submitted that for the same occurrence, a counter case i.e. Sariyahat P.S. Case No.114 of 2007 for the offences under sections 147, 447, 341, 323, 337, 379 and 504 of IPC was also lodged by the appellants against the informant party of this case. The injuries sustained on the neck by the injured, Saligram Yadav was found simple in nature and other injuries were abrasions. It is further submitted that the dispute broke out between the parties due to grazing of maize crops of Saligram Yadav. There was no intention either side to cause death of any person. It is further submitted that it was the first offence of the appellants, which finds mentioned in the impugned judgment. Learned trial court without taking into consideration, genesis, manner of occurrence and offence committed by the appellants has failed to extend 2026:JHHC:14558 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.209 of 2009 5 the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, which the appellants are entitled. Submission on behalf of the State:- 8. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has defended the impugned judgment on merits stating that the injured, Saligram Yadav has sustained grievous injury on his neck, which has been corroborated from the injury report. Therefore, it is a clear cut offence under section 307 of IPC and learned trial court has committed no illegality in convicting and sentencing the appellants for the said charge. This appeal has no merits and fit to be dismissed. Analysis, Reasons and Decision:- 9. I have gone through the impugned judgments of court below in the light of rival contentions of the respective parties. 10. It appears that P.W.4, Dr. Om Prakash has examined the injured, Paltu Yadav and found following injury on his person:- (i) An incised wound on right elbow upper part of right fore- arm with red clotted blood 3” x ½” x muscle deep. As per opinion of the doctor, the nature of injury was simple and caused by any sharp-cutting weapon. Age of injury was within six hours and the injury report marked as Ext.1. 2026:JHHC:14558 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.209 of 2009 6 11. On the same day, he had examined another injured, Saligram Yadav and found following injuries on his person:- (i) Partial amputation with disfiguration of right half ear from the pinna to lobule with sharp cut margin red in colour with red clotted blood. (ii) An incised wound on root of right neck with red clotted blood 3 ½” x ½” x 1/4” to 1” (iii) An incised wound on anterior aspect of right upper arm with red clotted blood 3 ¾” x ½” x ¼” to ¾” (iv) An abrasion red in colour on right cheek 2”x1” red in colour. (v) An abrasion on middle of lateral side of left arm 1”x ½” red in colour. Mode of injury Nos.(i) to (iii) sharp cutting substance and (iv) and (v) by hard and blunt substance within 6 hours. Injury No.(i) was grievous in nature. However, Injury Nos.(iv) and (v) are simple in nature and opinion reserved for injury Nos.(ii) and (iii) and referred to Sadar Hospital, Dumka for expert opinion. The injury report was marked as Ext.1/1. Later on, supplementary injury report was received and found following observations:- 2026:JHHC:14558 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.209 of 2009 7 X-ray of right upper arm A/P lateral view and X-ray neck A/P lateral view and the report shows NAD (No Abnormality Detected). On the basis of expert opinion, injury nos.(ii) and (iii) were found simple in nature. 12. This witness has also examined Laxman Yadav on the same day and found following injuries on his person:- (i) Lacerated wound on left side of forehead with red clotted blood ¼” x 1/3” x scalp deep (ii) An abrasion red in colour on right side of lower chest 1” x 1”. It was opined by the doctor that both of the injuries was caused by hard and blunt substance within 6 hours and simple in nature. The injury report was marked as Ext.1/4 13. On the same day at about 1:30 pm, he further examined Nityanand Yadav and found following injuries:- (i) Incised wound on lateral side of left elbow ith red clotted blood 2” x 1/3” x muscle deep. It was opined by the Doctor that this injury is caused by sharp cutting substance within 6 hours and simple in nature. This injury report was marked as Ext.1/5 2026:JHHC:14558 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.209 of 2009 8 14. In order to prove an offence under section 307 of IPC essential mensrea to constitute the said offence has to be proved. Mensrea can be inferred from the kind of weapon used, nature of injury, force used and part of body etc. The onus lies on the prosecution that the accused has caused an act with intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that if by such act death was caused, he would be guilty of murder. 15. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hari Singh Vrs. Sukhbir Singh & Others as reported in (1988) 4 SCC 551, at para 7 that:- "7. …………..Under Section 307 I.P.C. what the court has to see is, whether the act irrespective of is result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in that section. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. Without this ingredient being established, there can be no offence of "attempt to murder". Under Section 307 the intention precedes the act attributed to accused. Therefore, the intention is to be gathered from all circumstances, and not merely from the consequence that ensue. The nature of the weapon used, manner in which it is used, motive for the crime, severity of the blow, the part of the body where the injury is inflicted are some of the factors that may be taken into consideration to determine the intention." 16. In the instant case, there was exchange of assault between the parties due to grazing of maize crops by the she-buffalo of one accused, Parwal Yadav as a result of which both parties have sustained injuries and a 2026:JHHC:14558 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.209 of 2009 9 case and counter case has been filed by them. From the injury report, it appears that all the injuries sustained by the injured persons are found to be simple in nature except one injury sustained by the injured, Saligram Yadav on his neck, which was found grievous in nature as opined by the doctor (P.W.4) but from the supplementary injury report, X-ray shows NAD (No Abnormality Detected). Therefore, the required intention or knowledge to constitute the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is absolutely lacking in this case. In view of the above discussion and reasons, the conviction of the appellants for the offence under section 307 of IPC is hereby set aside and is altered to under Section 326 of IPC. Accordingly, appellants are found guilty for the offences under sections 326, 149, 341, 147 and 148 of IPC. 17. So far the sentence is concerned, it appears that admittedly the appellants have taken plea that it was the first offence of the appellants but the learned trial court has not recorded any special reason for not extending the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the appellants. The occurrence was of the year, 2007 and from the occurrence, almost two decades have elapsed. Therefore, considering their age, antecedents and character, the appellants deserve the benefit of section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. 18. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in conviction and sentence to the extent mentioned above instead of 2026:JHHC:14558 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.209 of 2009 10 undergoing substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants by the learned Trial Court. The appellants are hereby directed to be released on furnishing bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 within two months from the date of this order for maintaining peace and be of good behavior for one year from the date of furnishing the bond. 19. If the bond is not furnished within above stipulated time, the learned Trial Court shall issue notice upon the appellants to secure their attendance for furnishing the bond. 20. In case of violation of terms and conditions of the bond, the appellants shall be called upon to receive the sentence already awarded to them. 21. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly. 22. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record be sent back immediately to the concerned trial court for compliance. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Pappu/- 11/05/2026 Uploaded on 15 /05/2026