2026:JHHC:8541 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 670 of 2005 1. Abinash Roy, S/o: Tipan Roy 2. Ganesh Singh, Son of Shri Bhooly Singh, Both resident of village Lodhara, P.S. Saraiyahat, District-Dumka. … … Appellants Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Arjun Rai, Son of Chutar Rai, Resident of Village Lodhra, P.O. & P.S. Saraiyahat, District Dumka. … … Opp. Parties --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellants : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, Advocate : Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Azeemuddin, A.P.P For the Informant : Ms. Puja Kumari, Advocate : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, Advocate --- 16/25.03.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.05.2005 passed by learned 4th Additional District & Sessions Judge (F.T.C), Dumka in Sessions Case No. 323 of 2003/428 of 2003 whereby the appellants have been held guilty for the offence committed under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (herein after referred as I.P.C). 3. Learned trial court has sentenced the appellants for rigorous imprisonment of two years and also to pay fine of Rs.5,00/- each and default in sentence for one month. 4. On 24.03.2026, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the alleged incident is dated 20.09.2002 at 7 p.m. The appellants have been convicted on 30.05.2005 and on that day, appellant no.1 namely Abinash Roy, was 35 years of age and appellant 2026:JHHC:8541 2 no.2 namely Ganesh Singh was 40 years of age and accordingly they are 55 years and 61 years respectively as on today. 5. He submits that although the case was registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C., the charge was framed under Section 307/34 I.P.C., and the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 325/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years with a fine of Rs.500/- each. He further submits that the appellants have been acquitted for the offence under Section 307/34 I.P.C. 6. The learned counsel has also submitted that altogether nine witnesses were examined, and during the course of hearing, he would be referring to the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 and 9. He submits that P.W. 6 is wife of P.W. 4, and that P.W. 6 had turned hostile. So far as P.W. 4 is concerned, though he has supported the prosecution case but is a hearsay witness. He has further submitted that P.W. 8 is also hearsay witness. He submits that on account of the aforesaid he does not want to refer to the evidence of P.Ws. 4, 6 and 8. 7. The learned counsel further submits that there is no eye witness to the occurrence; however, the informant of the case is the victim himself, who has been examined as P.W. 9, and the investigating officer of the case has been examined as P.W. 7. 8. The learned counsel has submitted that the evidence of P.W. 1 and 9 are contradictory with respect to place of occurrence. He submits that P.W. 1 has stated that when he reached the place of occurrence, there was nobody around and other P.Ws. have stated that they had also reached the place of occurrence. He submits that such contradiction reveals that the place of occurrence has not been properly proved. He has further submitted that P.W. 1 and 2 have stated that victim was taken to the hospital. However, P.W. 3 has contradicted this statement and has deposed that victim was first taken to the police station. However, during the course of hearing, it transpired that the fardbeyan of victim-informant was recorded in the 2026:JHHC:8541 3 hospital and Investigating Officer has also been examined in the present case. 9. The learned counsel further submits that P.W. 5 is the only doctor who has been examined and who has stated that the injury was grievous. He submits that the records would reveal that the victim was taken to Sadar Hospital, Dumka after Primary Health Center, Seraiyahat and the victim claims to have remained in the hospital for 19 days. He submits that P.W. 5, the doctor at the Primary Health Center, could not have immediately give the report with respect to grievous injury. 10. The learned counsel has further submitted that whether the nature of injury was grievous or simple, has to be examined in the light of Section 320 of I.P.C. and the opinion of the doctor, who stated that the injury was grievous is not conclusive. The learned counsel has submitted that upon true appreciation of evidences placed on record, it would appear that the injury was simple in nature, and therefore, the conviction for offence under Section 325 I.P.C. read with Section 34 of I.P.C. is not substantiated, and consequently, the conviction and also the corresponding sentence is required to be modified. 11. Today, learned counsel for the appellants while assailing the impugned judgment has submitted that there is no eye witness to the occurrence although, the victim who is the informant of the case has been examined before the court. He has further submitted that the place of occurrence has not been mentioned in the case diary and therefore, the investigating officer did not record the place of occurrence. He has further submitted that one of the alleged weapon used for commission of offence is knife. However, the doctor who had examined the victim in the primary health center opined that all the three injuries were caused by hard and blunt substances. He has further submitted that the knife or the lathi whichever was allegedly used for commission of offence were not recovered. Learned counsel further submits that the occurrence as disclosed in the First Information Report (hereinafter referred as F.I.R) was that the 2026:JHHC:8541 4 informant had filed a complaint before the Deputy Collector and the Chief Minister in connection with non-payment of the money, as provided by the Government, to the son of the informant in the school in which the appellant No.1 was a teacher. Due to which appellants were annoyed and they caused the incident. He has further submitted no evidence has come that the son of the informant was studying in the school and the informant’s son has also not been examined before the court. 12. Learned counsel has placed the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.8 to submit that they claimed that they reached the place of occurrence upon hearing the noise, but they had not seen the occurrence and they have simply stated that they found the victim in an injured condition and ultimately the victim was taken to the hospital. 13. P.W.5 is the doctor who was posted in primary health centre, Saraiyahat had examined the victim and then the victim was referred for further treatment and in his report this doctor has not stated that the victim had suffered any grievance injuries rather he had stated that the exact situation would come up upon the opinion of the expert and he referred the patient for X-ray. Learned counsel submits that P.W.5 has prepared the report on 21.09.2002 which is exhibited as Exhibit-1 and there is another report dated 24.10.2002 which has been exhibited as Exhibited 1/1 wherein the same doctor has referred to the expert opinion written by another doctor namely Dr. S.N. Jha wherein fracture injury was found and on the basis to such fracture injury, the P.W.5 doctor opined that the injuries were grievous in nature. Learned counsel has submitted that neither Dr. S.N. Jha who had conducted the X-ray has been examined before the court nor his report has been exhibited. Rather, his report has been referred to in the subsequent opinion of the P.W.5 which is dated 24.10.2002. Learned counsel submits that the basis to give a finding that the injury was grievous is the X-ray report which has not been proved at all. Accordingly, the 2026:JHHC:8541 5 finding of the learned court that the victim suffered grievous injury has not been proved by cogent evidence. 14. He has also submitted that Dr. S.N. Jha was not even one of the charge sheeted witnesses in the case. The learned counsel submits that there are contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses and consequently, neither the cause of occurrence as alleged nor the place of occurrence has been proved. He submits that some of the witnesses have stated that the incident had taken place outside the school and some had stated that it had taken place on the road. 15. Learned counsel for the State as well as the informant has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and has submitted that the place of occurrence has been duly proved by the witnesses who reached the place of occurrence and found the victim in an injured condition. They have submitted that the victim has been examined who was also the informant of the case and the evidence of the informant, who is also the victim, remained intact and therefore, there is no question of holding that the place of occurrence or the incident has not been proved in the present case. They have also submitted that the other witnesses during cross examination have stated that the son of the victim was studying in the school in which other children were also studying. 16. However, during the course of argument, it is not in dispute that Dr. S.N. Jha who had conducted the X-ray has not been examined nor the X-ray report has been exhibited before the Court. 17. In response, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellant No.1 is 55 years of age as of now and the appellant No.2 is 60 years of age and the alleged incident is of the year 2002 and 24 years have passed from the date of the occurrence. As per the impugned judgment and sentence, it has been recorded that the convicts have not been punished for any other offence and they have no criminal antecedent. Learned counsel submits that since grievous injuries has not been proved therefore, the conviction under section 325/34 of the I.P.C. cannot be sustained and therefore, some 2026:JHHC:8541 6 sympathetic view may be taken and punishment be altered under appropriate section and the sentence may be modified. 18. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the case was lodged by the victim who was examined as P.W.9 stating that on 20.09.2002 at about 7:00 P.M. he was coming from Champagardh, Hatia and when reached near the school, he saw the accused persons were sitting at the mill of the accused Abinash Roy and the accused persons came out from the mill and they caught hold the victim and grounded him on the road. Abinash Roy took knife and caused hurt on the upper part of the left eye with an intention to kill the informant and the informant became unconscious, villagers came and took him to Saraiyahat Primary Health Centre for treatment. The cause of incident has been mentioned in the FIR that the son of the informant namely Govind Ray studying in the village Bal Shramik School and accused Abinash Roy was the teacher in that school. It is stated that the government provided stipend money to the students, but the accused was not paying the said stipend amount to the informant’s son for which the informant had made complaint through registered post to the Chief Minister and Deputy Commission, on this the accused became furious and committed the occurrence. 19. Upon investigation charge sheet was submitted and charge was framed under Section 307 of the I.P.C. read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. 20. Altogether nine witnesses were examined out of them P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.8 came to the place upon hearing noise and they have stated that they saw the informant in injured condition and ultimately the informant was taken to the primary health centre. These witnesses are not eye witnesses to the occurrence, but they have stated that when they reached the place of occurrence, they saw the informant in injured condition, who was bleeding, and the informant had narrated the incident to them and they had taken the informant to the hospital. These witnesses are witnesses only in connection with the 2026:JHHC:8541 7 fact that when they reached the place of occurrence, they saw the informant in a bleeding condition. 21. So far as the P.W.4 is concerned, he has stated that the son of the informant was studying in the Bal Shramik School and the accused Abinash was a teacher of the said school. P.W.5 is the doctor who had examined the victim on 21.09.2002 and he has given the following report:- “1. A lacerated wound over lower part of forehead just below the left eyebrow, root of nose and inner campus of right eye size 2 ½”x ¼”x 1/8”horizontal in direction with clotted blood. 2. A lacerated wound on medical aspect of left knee size 1” x ½” x1/8” with clotted blood. 3. A diffuse swelling size 1 ½” x 1” over lateral aspect of right knee red in colour M/1 All caused by hard & blunt substances A/1 All between 6 to 24 hours. N/1 Opinion is reserved for all three injuries because patient referred to S.H Dumka for x-ray of concerning part, opinion of expert and further management. 22. According to P.W.5 all the injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance and in the report only he referred the patient to Sadar Hospital Dumka for X-ray. This witness has further deposed that he gave another opinion on the basis of expert opinion written by Dr. S.N. Jha of Sadar Hospital and in that report fracture injuries were found and this witness prepared the report after one month which is dated 24.10.2002 which is as under: - “Arjun Roy, S/o Chutar Roy, Village:- Lodhara P.S: Saraiyahat was examined by me on 21.09.2002 at 4 P.M. was referred to S.H. Dumka, for his injury No.1, 2 and 3. Now expert opinion written by Dr. S.N. Jha from S.H,. Dumka is obtained in which following is written: - 1. X-ray skull- AP & Latsal view shows- Fracture of lower part of frontal bone and bridge of nose. 2. X-ray Rt. Knee and upper part of righty le AP & Latsal view- shows-Fracture of upper part of rt. Fibula (including head) So on the basis of Dr. S.N. Jha opinion injury No.1 and 3 are grievous in nature while injury No.2 is simple in nature (as report pertained).” 2026:JHHC:8541 8 23. However, neither the X-ray was exhibited before the court nor Dr. S.N. Jha was examined. This Court further finds that the finding of the doctor that the injury was grievous is primarily based on the X-ray report which allegedly showed fracture injury as in the initial report dated 21.09.2002, no such opinion has been given by the doctor. This Court finds that in absence of X-ray report or examination of doctor Dr. S.N. Jha who had done the X-ray of the victim, fracture injury has not been duly proved. This Court also finds that the victim has been thoroughly examined and cross examined and victim has also not mentioned anything about the nature of injury suffered by him. He has simply stated that he was in hospital for 19 days at Dumka, but no document in connection with such admission in the hospital has been exhibited and accordingly this aspect of the matter has not been proved. The learned trial court while convicting the appellants under Section 325/34 IPC has failed to consider aforesaid aspects of the matter. 24. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the grievous injuries in the present case i.e. fracture has not been proved and accordingly, the conviction of the appellants for offence under Section 325/34 of I.P.C. cannot be sustained. However, this Court is of the view that the incident has been duly proved and the victim was assaulted with dangerous weapons and had suffered injuries. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the conviction of the appellants is required to be converted under Section 324/34 of the I.P.C. 25. So far as sentence is concerned, this Court finds that the incident is of more than 22 years and the present age of the appellant No. 1 is 55 years and the present age of appellant No.2 is 60 years and accordingly, the sentence of the appellants are modified and reduced to 6 months with fine of Rs.15,000/- each to be deposited by the appellants within three months from the date of communication of this order to the concerned court. If the fine amount is not deposited within 2026:JHHC:8541 9 the stipulated time by one or the other appellant, such appellant shall serve the sentence as imposed by the learned trial court. 26. The fine amount is directed to be remitted to the victim after due identification. 27. This appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 28. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 29. The record be sent back to the concerned court. 30. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned court through “Fax/e-mail”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 25.03.2026 Rakesh/- Uploaded on:-28.05.2026