2026:JHHC:16556 Cr. Revision No.113 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OFJHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 113 of 2015 --------- Gandira Oraon, son of late Bana Oraon, resident of village-Pugu Nawatoli, P.O. and P.S.-Gumla, Dist.-Gumla ……Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Gosai Oraon, S/o- Late Etwa Oraon, R/o village-Pugu Nawatoli, P.O. + P.S.-Gumla, Dist. Gumla …. Opp. Parties ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhay Kr. Chaturvedy, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P. --------- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORDERS ----------- CAV On 06/05/2026 Pronounced On 09/06/2026 1. Heard Mr. Abhay Kumar Chaturvedy, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. 2. Instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 09.01.2015 passed in Cr. Appeal No.63 of 2014 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Gumla, who affirmed the judgment and order of the conviction and sentence passed by learned 1st Assistant Sessions Judge, Gumla in S.T. No.80 of 2010, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner was held guilty for the offence under sections 323, 341, 326, 307 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years R.I. with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation for the offence under sections 307 and 326 of IPC each, R.I. for 1 year for the offence under section 323 of IPC and R.I. for one month for 2026:JHHC:16556 Cr. Revision No.113 of 2015 2 the offence under section 323 of IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Factual Matrix 3. Factual Matrix giving rise to this revision is that on 03.05.2009 in the evening, while the informant was irrigating his field the petitioner came there and insisted to irrigate his field first by stopping irrigation going on in the field of the informant. Upon protest, the petitioner gave a spade blow on the head of the informant with intention to kill him. 4. On the basis of above information, FIR being Gumla P.S. Case No.100 of 2009 was lodged for the offences under sections 323, 341 and 307 of IPC. After conclusion of the investigation, charge- sheet was submitted against above named sole petitioner for the offence under sections 341, 323, 326 and 307 of IPC. The case was committed to the court of Sessions where S.T. No.80 of 2010 was registered and transferred to the court of 1st Assistant Sessions Judge, Gumla for trial and disposal. 5. In the course of trial, altogether 5 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. P.W.1- Sangita Kachhap P.W.2-Champu Devi 2026:JHHC:16556 Cr. Revision No.113 of 2015 3 P.W.3-Krishna Oraon P.W.4-Kishun Oraon P.W.5- Dr. Hemant Kumar 6. Apart from the oral evidence, following documentary evidences have been adduced: Ext.1-Signature of Kisan Oraon on the fardbayan Ext.1/a Signature of the informant Gosai Oraon(since deceased) on the fardbayan. Ext.2 Injury report of the informant Gosai Oraon (since deceased) proved by the P.W.5, Dr. Hemant. 7. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced. Admittedly, the case of the defence is denial for the occurrence and false implication due to dispute regarding irrigation of field. 8. Learned trial court after scrutinizing the evidence available on record found that the assault has been committed against the informant, who died after three months of the occurrence. P.W.1 is the daughter of the informant and is the sole eye-witness to the occurrence and her testimony found corroboration from the evidence of P.W.5-Dr. Hemant Kumar, who has examined the injured, Gosai Oraon. Accordingly, learned trial court recorded 2026:JHHC:16556 Cr. Revision No.113 of 2015 4 findings about guilt of the petitioner for the offence under sections 307, 326, 323 and 341 of IPC. The appeal preferred by the convict has also been dismissed without any interference. Submission on behalf of the petitioner:- 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under sections 307 and 326 of IPC. Although, admittedly the informant, who was not examined in this case, died after three months of the occurrence but his death was not connected with the assault sustained in this occurrence. It is further argued that the injury sustained by the informant was found grievous in nature caused by sharp-cutting weapon, which was not intentional or with knowledge as required under section 307 of IPC rather it was a simple case of causing grievous hurt by sharp- cutting weapon. It is further submitted that the genesis of occurrence is dispute about irrigation of paddy crops and the scuffle took place between the informant and the accused in a sudden manner without any intention and a single blow by a spade was given over the head of the injured. Under such circumstances, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for 2026:JHHC:16556 Cr. Revision No.113 of 2015 5 the offence under section 307 of IPC is absolutely unwarranted under law. In alternative, it is contended that the petitioner has remained in custody for more than one year during trial and post-conviction and has sufficiently been punished for his guilt. The learned trial court has also failed to give the benefit of section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act inspite of the fact that it was the first offence of the petitioner and simply on the ground that the injury caused to the injured was on vital part of the body and grievous in nature. The occurrence is of the year 2009 and about 1 ½ decades has passed. The petitioner has maintained a peaceful life without involving in other criminal activities. The family of the informant has also restored in peaceful life. Therefore, the petitioner was granted bail by this court vide order dated 09.04.2015 and again sending the petitioner to undergo remaining part of imprisonment will serve no useful purpose, hence, the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the imprisonment already undergone. Submission on behalf of the State:- 10. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. defending the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the petitioner 2026:JHHC:16556 Cr. Revision No.113 of 2015 6 has submitted that there is no legal substance in the contentions raised on the behalf of the petitioner and the learned trial court as well as appellate court have very wisely and aptly scrutinized the evidence available on record. The sole eye-witness is none else but the daughter of the injured and the injured died after three months of the occurrence. The injury report of the informant also found to be grievous in nature and life threatening. Therefore, this revision has no merits and no interference is required in the concurrent findings of the court below and this revision is fit to be dismissed. Analysis, Reasons and Decision:- 11. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment and order passed by learned trial court as well as learned appellate court in the light of contentions raised on behalf of the both party. 12. It appears that the dispute arose between the informant and the petitioner on the question of irrigation of field by cutting bund (bandh). In that course, one spade blow was given by the petitioner on the head of the informant. P.W.5 Dr. Hemant has examined the injured and found following injuries (1) incised wound at the middle of parietal 2026:JHHC:16556 Cr. Revision No.113 of 2015 7 region of the head with size 1” x ¾” x bone deep with fracture of parietal bone (2) abrasion with size ½” x 1/3” over right wrist. P.W.1 Sangita Kachap is the daughter of the informant and the sole eye-witness to the occurrence, who has categorically attributed giving one spade blow on the head of her father by the petitioner, who was admitted at Sadar Hospital, thereafter, referred to Ranchi. She has alleged that from the time of incident, her father became insane and died after three months. P.W.2. Champu Dev, P.W.3-Krishna Oaon and P.W.4- Kishun Oraon reached at the place of the occurrence just after the occurrence and saw the informant was injured sustaining sharp cutting injury and he was immediately brought to Sadar Hospital, thereafter referred to Ranchi and due to injury, he became insane. 13. In view of above discussion and reasons, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in conviction and sentence of the petitioner. 14. So far quantum of sentence is concerned, it appears that the occurrence took place in a sudden manner for trivial issue of irrigation of paddy crops and a single spade blow was given by the petitioner to the informant on vital part of the body like head, which was also found dangerous to life. It is also proved that the 2026:JHHC:16556 Cr. Revision No.113 of 2015 8 injured was suffering from insanity after sustaining the head injury and ultimately died after three months of the occurrence. But at the same time, the petitioner was not intending to cause such injury and he also happened to agnate of the informant. On the date of occurrence, the petitioner was about 24 years having no criminal background. It further transpires that the family of the victim has also been restored a normal life and the petitioner has also undergone the agony of trial for more than 15 years and living peaceful life without indulgence in any criminal activities. Therefore, the reformative approach may be taken in this case ignoring the deterrence and retributive theory of punishment. Therefore, considering the nature of offence committed by the petitioner, genesis and manner of occurrence, age, character and antecedent, it appears expedient in the ends of the justice to reduce the sentence of the petitioner to the imprisonment already undergone for the offence under sections 307, 326, 341 and 323 of IPC. 15. In view of the above, this revision is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence to the extent as mentioned above. 16. Pending I.As, if any, is disposed off. 2026:JHHC:16556 Cr. Revision No.113 of 2015 9 17. Let a copy of this order along with Lower Court Records be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) High court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Date: 09 /06/2026 Pappu/- N.A.F.R. Uploaded On 11/ 06/2026