2026:JHHC:15125 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1444 of 2007 --------- [Against the judgment of conviction dated 10.09.2007 and sentence dated 11.09.2007 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Sessions Case No. 75 of 2006 / 49 of 2006 arising out of Jamtara P.S. Case No. 219 of 2005 corresponding to G.R. No.461 of 2005] --------- Sarkar Kisku, Son of Late Kalu Kisku, Resident of Baghdara, P.S.-Jamtara, District-Jamtara. … … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand …. Respondent --------- For the Appellant : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Praful Jojo, A.P.P. ----------- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT ----------- Dated: 15th May, 2026 1. Heard Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. 2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 10.09.2007 and sentence dated 11.09.2007 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Sessions Case No. 75 of 2006 / 49 of 2006 arising out of Jamtara P.S. Case No. 219 of 2005 corresponding to G.R. No.461 of 2005, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 8 years alongwith the fine of Rs. 1,000/-. 2026:JHHC:15125 2 | P a g e (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1444 of 2007) Factual Matrix:- 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 12.10.2005 at about 2:00 P.M., when the informant was sleeping in her house, it is alleged that the appellant came there and suddenly spread Kerosene oil on her head and hair and lit fire on her head by which her left side ear and neck of left portion got burnt. It is further alleged that the accused is her nephew and in order to grab the land of her late father, the accused tried to kill her by spreading kerosene oil on her head, due to which she sustained burn injuries on her person. 4. On the basis of written report of the informant, Jamtara P.S. Case No. 219 of 2005 was instituted for the offence under Sections 324 & 307 of the I.P.C. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions, where Sessions Case No. 75 of 2006 / 49 of 2006 was registered. The appellant denied the charges leveled against him and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of the trial, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence has been passed, which has been assailed in this appeal. 5. It appears that altogether 09 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution:- P.W.-1 Bisheshwar Kisku P.W.-2 Sarvey Kisku P.W.-3 Sonalal Hembrom P.W.-4 Chhopu Kisku (Informant-cum-injured) P.W.-5 Pan Marandi 2026:JHHC:15125 3 | P a g e (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1444 of 2007) P.W.-6 Lakumani Soren P.W.-7 Subendu Soren P.W.-8 Niranjan Kr. Singh P.W.-9 Parwati Dubey Apart from the oral evidence, following documentary evidences have been adduced on behalf of the prosecution:- I. Exhibit-1 & 1/A: Written report & Endorsement on the written report. II. Exhibit-2: Signature of A.S.I. on the Formal F.I.R. III. Exhibit-3 & 3/A: Requisition for injury report & Injury report of the informant Submission on behalf of appellant:- 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as per F.I.R. allegation is that there was dispute of property between the informant and the appellant and while she was sleeping on the date of occurrence at about 2:00 P.M., the appellant spread kerosene oil on the head of the informant and lit fire on her due to which she sustained injuries on her left side of forehead and some portion of neck. It is further submitted that the appellant has been held guilty and sentenced for the offence under section 307 of I.P.C., which is not attracted at all even if the entire prosecution evidence is considered to be true and the offence only falls under Section 324 of the I.P.C. The occurrence is of the year 2005 and more than two decades have been elapsed. It is next submitted that parties have settled in life with mutual consent and the appellant is also leading peaceful life without involving in any criminal activities. 2026:JHHC:15125 4 | P a g e (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1444 of 2007) Learned counsel further submits that the maximum sentence awarded by learned trial court is 8 years, out of which the appellant has already undergone imprisonment of more than two years during pendency of trial and post-conviction and has sufficiently been punished for his guilt. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant prays for modification in conviction of the appellant from Section 307 I.P.C. to Section 324 of the I.P.C. and also prays for modification in sentence to the extent of imprisonment already undergone for the offence under section 324. Submission on behalf of State:- 7. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant and defending the impugned judgment on merits has submitted that the informant was caused burn injuries which manifests his intention to kill the injured and one of her left ear completely damaged. Therefore, this appeal has no merits and fit to be dismissed. Analysis, Reasons and Decision:- 8. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment and order in the light of the contentions raised on behalf of both side. 9. The evidence of PW-9 Dr. Parwati Dubey, who was acquainted with hand writing of the Dr. R. P. Singh, has simply proved the signature on injury report. Dr. R. P. Singh has examined the injured and the injury report (Exhibit No. 3/A) shows that the injured, P.W.4, Chhopu Kisku has sustained following injury:- (i) Burn injury on left sides of forehead, head & neck. 2026:JHHC:15125 5 | P a g e (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1444 of 2007) The nature of injury is found to be simple in nature. 10. In order to prove an offence under section 307 of I.P.C. 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 on the 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 if by such act death was caused, he would be guilty of murder. In the instant case, the occurrence took place on account of land dispute, the appellant spread kerosene oil on the body of informant due to which she got burn injury but nature of injuries caused to the injured and manner of assault clearly indicates that the required intention or knowledge for constituting the offence under section 307 of I.P.C. is absolutely lacking in this case. 11. In view of the above discussion and reasons, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under section 307 of IPC is hereby set aside and is altered to under Section 324 of I.P.C. Accordingly, appellant is found guilty for the offence under sections 324 of I.P.C. It is also obvious and undisputed that the appellant has already undergone custody for more than two years, which appears to be sufficient punishment for his guilt for the offence committed by the appellant. 12. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in conviction and sentence as stated above. 13. The appellant is on bail. He is discharged from liability of his bail bond and sureties are also discharged. 14. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly. 2026:JHHC:15125 6 | P a g e (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1444 of 2007) 15. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated: 15.05.2026 Rahul - NAFR Uploaded on: 18/05/2026