2026:JHHC:8396 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 614 of 2005 1. Lal Bihari Ram, Son of Ram Pyare Ram 2. Sushil Mochi @ Sushil Kumar, Son of Bhageswa Ram 3. Kunti Devi, Wife of Lal Bihar Ram All residents of village Lesliganj, P.O. and P.S. Lesliganj, District-Palamau. … … Appellants Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Radhika Ram, S/o: Lat Bhikhari Ram, R/o: Lesliganj, P.O. & P.S.- Lesliganj, District:- Palamau. … … Opp. Parties --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellant : Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate : Mr. V.N. Jha, Advocate For the Opp. Party State : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P --- 18/24.03.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 04th May, 2005 and order of conviction and sentence dated 05.05.2005 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Sessions Trial No.54 of 2001 whereby the appellants have been held guilty for offence committed under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C) and they have sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for the said offence. Arguments of the appellants. 3. At the outset, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellant No.1 namely Lal Bihari Ram is 68 years of age as of now and even as per the counter affidavit filed by the State, with regard to the present status of heath of appellant No. 1, the appellant No.1 is found to be in poor health condition and he is blind. 4. So far as appellant No.2 is concerned, he is 44 years of age as of today. 5. The appellant No.3 is a lady and wife of appellant No.1 who is 66 years of age as now. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the custody report as received from the concerned court reveals that all the 2026:JHHC:8396 2 appellants were remained in custody for 25 days. He has submitted that the First Information Report (F.I.R) was registered under section 341, 323, 325, 447 of the I.P.C read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. for the alleged incident of 10.05.2000. He has also placed the F.I.R. and has submitted that specific allegation with respect to head injury has been made against appellant No.1 and with respect to appellant No.2 there is an allegation that he hit the informant, who is also the victim, near his eyes. He has also submitted that there is no specific overact so far as appellant No. 3 is concerned, in the F.I.R. 7. He has further submitted that initially the victim was taken to Sadar Hospital, Daltonganj and thereafter, he was taken to R.M.C.H, Ranchi for further treatment and the doctor of R.M.C.H has been examined as P.W.10 and the doctor of the hospital at Daltonganj has been examined as P.W.11. He has submitted that so far as P.W.1, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.W.8 are concerned, they are family members of the informant/victim who are wife, brother, second wife, daughter, daughter and daughter respectively, but none of them are eye witness to the occurrence and they arrived at the place of occurrence after the incident. He has submitted that so far as villagers are concerned, they have examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3 they have turned hostile. 8. Learned counsel submits that the informant has been examined as P.W.9 and he has alleged that the appellant No.3 (the wife of appellant No.1) was present and was instigating for the commission of offence. Learned counsel has submitted that there was no intention to kill and therefore, offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out. He has further submitted that the investigating officer of the case has not been examined and therefore, the place of occurrence has not been fully proved and at the end but, without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, he has submitted that even if the conviction is sustained, some liberal view may be taken against all the appellants including appellant No.1 and 3 on the point of sentence and has submitted that as per the impugned order and sentence they have no criminal antecedent. Learned counsel has further submitted that the incident 2026:JHHC:8396 3 had taken place on account of some alleged dispute by which the son of the appellant Nos. 1 and 3 was scolded by the informant due to stealing of mangoes. Arguments of the State. 9. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the basic ingredients for offence under Section 307 I.P.C. has been clearly made out. He submits that the injury suffered is grievous in nature and therefore, the assailants clearly knew the gravity of the act which was likely to cause death, but fortunately the victim/informant did not succumb to the injuries. He submits that considering the nature of injuries, the victim was referred for further treatment at R.M.C.H, Ranchi and it was found that he suffered fracture on his head. Learned counsel submits that the victim has supported the prosecution case and his evidence has remained intact and therefore, it is immaterial as to whether other witnesses are eye witness to the occurrence or not. He has also submitted that the medical evidence is corroborating the incident which has been narrated by the victim in the F.I.R. 10. During the course of hearing, it transpires that the incident is of 10.05.2000 at 06:00 AM and more than 25 years have expired from the date of incident. Findings of this Court. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that as per the prosecution case, on 10.05.2000 three accused persons, who are appellants before this Court, came to the house of the informant and assaulted the informant. It is specifically mentioned that appellant No. 1 assaulted the informant with Lathi on his head and appellant No. 2 also assaulted him with Lathi towards his eyes and the informant suffered bleeding injury on the head and swelling near the eyes. The reason for the incident has also been mentioned in the F.I.R. itself that informant’s wife Shanti Devi had earlier scolded the son of the appellant No. 1 and appellant No. 3 in connection with plucking mangoes from their tree and the incident of scolding had happened just two days prior to the incident of 10.05.2000. In the F.I.R. though, 2026:JHHC:8396 4 it has been mentioned that the appellant No. 3 had accompanied the two appellants, but no overact as such has been mentioned with regard to appellant No.3. The F.I.R was registered and the appellants were charged for offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The prosecution examined altogether 11 witnesses including the informant as P.W.9 and two doctors one of R.M.C.H, Ranchi as P.W.10 and one from Primary Hospital Daltonganj as P.W.11. 12. So far as injuries suffered by the victim is concerned, P.W. 11 has deposed with respect to the injuries and also exhibited the injury report as Exhibit 2/1. The injury described by P.W. 11 is as follows:- i. Huge swelling with pain and tenderness on right frontal part of head and temporal region. Swelling extending to eyebrow and whole of upper eye lid of right eye. ii. Rounder swelling on font parietal region of head right side. iii. Lacerated wound on right parietal region of head ½” x ¼” scalp deep with profuse bleeding and red margin. iv. Pain, swelling and tenderness on posterior side of right palm between 2nd and 3rd metacarpal bone. v. Concussion due to intracranial trauma. All within four hours. Mark of identification-Expected scar of injury No.3 13. P.W.11 is the medical officer at Primary Health Centre Lesliganj who had examined the victim on 10.05.2000 at 9:50 AM and found the aforesaid injuries and as per P.W.11 the injuries were possibly caused by Lathi blows and the injury No. 1 and 5 were found to be grievous. This witness has also stated that the injured was referred to Daltonganj hospital by this doctor. This witness has been cross examined and during cross examination he has stated that the injury could have occurred even by fall. 14. So far as P.W. 10 is concerned, he was the Medical Officer of the Department of Neurosurgery, RIIMS Ranchi and had examined the victim/informant on 12.05.2000. He has stated that he had examined the victim and the victim was referred from Sadar Hospital Daltonganj vide registration No. 1214 dated 10.05.2000 and he found following injuries on the body of the victim: 2026:JHHC:8396 5 “Stitched wound 1” long on right parietal region.” 15. P.W.10 has also stated that the patient was operated by him on 13.05.2000 and blood clot was also found. He had also proved the mark of identification with respect to the victim and stated that the time of injury was 48 hours, at the time of admission of the victim. He has further deposed that the nature of weapon was hard blunt weapon like Lathi and the injury was grievous and this type of injury to the head and brain is life threatening and the patient was discharged on 29.05.2000. The injury report has been prepared by this doctor who has exhibited the injury report as Exhibit-2. P.W. 10 (doctor) has been duly examined and during cross examination, he has stated that the opinion regarding fracture of parietal bone was given on the basis of report of C.T. Scan. However, the report of the C.T. Scan was not sent with the injury report. 16. This Court finds that so far as the evidence of doctors are concerned, they have given clear evidence with respect to the nature of injury suffered by the victim and both the doctors had opined that the victim has suffered grievous injury by hard and blunt substance and P.W.10 has clearly stated that the victim had suffered fracture on the head and further the nature of injury was grievous, which was life threatening. The victim was operated on 13.05.2000 and he was remained hospitalized till 29.05.2000. Apparently, the nature of injury suffered by the victim/informant as disclosed in the F.I.R. is matching with the evidence of the doctor with respect to the period of injury and the weapon by which the injury was caused, both the doctors have deposed that the nature of weapon used was hard and blunt substance like lathi. 17. So far as the evidence of P.W.9 the victim is concerned, he has fully supported the prosecution case and has made specific allegation with respect to the assault given to him by the appellant No. 1 and 2, but so far as the appellant No. 3 is concerned, this witness has stated that she was instigating the other two appellants for commission of offence. This witness has also shown the mark of injury to the court in paragraph 2 in his evidence and has also supported the case by giving 2026:JHHC:8396 6 the cause of the incident that two days prior to the incident the informant’s wife had scolded the son of appellant No. 3 namely Kunti Devi on plucking of mangoes. This witness has been cross examined and during cross examination he has vividly described the place of occurrence and has also stated that the people around and his wife had also come to the place of occurrence immediately after the incident. 18. After perusal of the evidence of the informant, this Court finds that the informant has fully supported the prosecution case and there is no material contradiction in his evidence during his cross examination and he has also described the place of occurrence. 19. So far as the other witnesses i.e. P.W.1 (Wife), P.W.4 (brother), P.W.5 (Second wife), P.W.6 (Daughter), P.W.7 (Daughter), P.W.8 (Daughter) are concerned they have also supported the prosecution case and these witnesses had come to the place of occurrence after the incident, but they have duly described the place of occurrence. 20. This Court is of the view that though the investigating officer of the case has not been examined. But, the place of occurrence has been duly proved by the other witnesses including the informant of the case and the evidence of the informant of the case is corroborated with the medical evidence which was said to be life threatening by the doctor who had performed the surgery upon the body of the informant. 21. In view of the aforesaid discussions with respect to the evidences placed on record, this Court of the view that the basic ingredients of offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against all the accused persons, as all the accused persons have joined together to assault the victim/informant which caused life threatening injuries to the informant and was grievous in nature. Merely because no overact by using any weapon has been assigned to the appellant No. 3, the same is not a ground for acquittal in view of the fact that Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is also involved in the present case as she is alleged to have been instigating for the commission of the alleged offence. 22. This Court has gone through the judgment passed by the learned trial court and finds that the learned trial has considered all the 2026:JHHC:8396 7 evidence placed on record and upon discussion of all the evidence, the learned court has come to a clear finding that the offence is made out. Learned trial court has also recorded that when there is sufficient evidence, the motive is not required to be proved and was immaterial. The learned trial court has recorded that there was no contradiction on the point of place of occurrence and the place of occurrence stood intact, identified and established. The learned trial court also recorded that the incident was reported to the police within 2 and ½ hours on the same day, which was apparent from the formal F.I.R i.e. Exhibit-3 and this left no doubt in the prosecution story and that there was sufficient evidence with respect to the injury caused to the informant which was life threatening by the accused persons. 23. This Court finds that the judgment passed by the learned trial court is well reasoned and has independently scrutinized the materials on record as discussed above and finds that the appellants have been rightly convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. However, on the point of sentence, this Court finds that admittedly no previous criminal case has been mentioned in the impugned judgment against the appellants, the fact also remains that more than 25 years has elapsed from the date of the incident, the appellant No. 1, who caused the head injury, is blind as per the medical report and as per the counter affidavit filed by the State and is of 68 years of age. 24. So far as appellant No. 3 who is the wife of appellant No.1 is concerned, she is a lady and is now 66 years of age. 25. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the sentence of the appellant Nos. 1 and 3 is modified to the following manner: i. So far as appellant No. 3 is concerned, her sentence is confined to the period already undergone in custody. ii. So far as appellant No.1 is concerned, he is one of the main assailants of the case. As per the counter affidavit of the state dated 16.02.2026 the appellant no.1 is very old, not able to see clearly and he depends on his family members for his daily work and medical report has been annexed to the counter 2026:JHHC:8396 8 affidavit. Considering the age and medical condition of the appellant no.1 and the facts that the incident itself is more than 25 years old, his sentence is modified to the period already undergone in custody with the fine of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited within the period of 3 months from the date of communication of this judgment to the concerned court. In case the fine amount is not deposited, the appellant No. 1 will serve the remaining sentence imposed by the learned trial court. iii. So far as appellant No.2 is concerned, he is also the main assailants who had assaulted the victim by Lathi causing grievous injuries and at present he is 44 years of age. However, considering the fact that more than 25 years have elapsed from the date of the incident, his sentence is also modified in the following manner: - The sentence is reduced to the period undergone in custody with fine of Rs.50,000/- to be deposited within 3 months from the date of communication of this judgment to the court concerned. If the fine amount is not deposed within 3 months, the appellant No. 2 will undergo the sentence as imposed by the learned trial court. 26. It is further directed that the fine amount so deposited by the appellant No. 1 and 2 be handed over to the informant of the case, who is also the victim, by the learned trial court after due identification, by way of victim compensation. 27. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 28. This appeal is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 29. The records 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.) 24.03.2026 Rakesh/- Uploaded on:-28.05.2026