2026:JHHC:16886-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (DB) No.132 of 1998 (R) [Against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.04.1998 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge- Simdega, in Session Trial No.130 of 1993] ----- 1. Prem Dan Jojo 2. Aniket Jojo, Both sons of Simon Jojo. All residents of Village Ramjari, P.S. Jaldega, Distt. Gumla. … … Appellants Versus The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) … … Respondent With Criminal Revision No.162 of 1998 (R) ----- The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) … … Petitioner Versus 1. Prem Dan Jojo 2. Aniket Jojo, Both sons of Simon Jojo All residents of Village Ramjari, P.S. Jaldega, Distt. Gumla. … … Opp. Parties ------- PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ------- [Cr. Appeal (DB) No.132 of 1998(R)] Amicus Curiae : Ms. Sugandha Khalkho, amicus curiae For the Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. [Cr. Revision No.162 of 1998(R)] For the Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. Amicus Curiae : Ms. Sugandha Khalkho, amicus curiae ------ C.A.V. on 07.05.2026 Pronounced on 10/06/2026 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. Criminal Appeal (DB) No.132 of 1998 (R) 1. The instant appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.04.1998 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega, in Session Trial No.130 of 1993 wherein both the appellants have been 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 2 convicted under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years each. Further, appellant Anikep Jojo @ Anieket Jojo and Premdan Jojo have been convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code separately for attempting to commit murder of Gandur Chik (P.W.-3) and Ganesh Chik (P.W.-8) respectively and have been directed to undergo R.I. for five years each. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. It is pertinent to mention that appellant Simon Jojo and Julia Mundain have died during the pendency of the instant appeal and, as such, the appeal qua Simon Jojo and Julia Mundain were abated by order dated 09.03.2026, passed by co-ordinate bench of this Court. 3. Before proceeding further, it needs to mention essential facts relevant to the present appeal. 4. After impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.04.1998 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega, in Session Trial No.130 of 1993, the appellants herein filed the present appeal before this Court on 28.05.1998. 5. Thereafter, a co-ordinate Bech of this Court while hearing the instant appeal on 16.06.1998 had noted that appellants have been convicted under section 302/34 of IPC 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 3 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega, and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and hence, the sentence awarded was not permissible under section 302/24 IPC. Hence, notice was issued to the appellants to show cause as to why the sentence awarded by the trial court should not be enhanced as the sentence awarded to them was contrary to law. 6. Thereafter, Criminal Revision No. 162 of 1998 was registered under section 401 of Cr.P.C and notice was issued to the appellants to show cause as to why the sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court should not be enhanced as the sentence awarded to them was contrary to law. 7. As per record of Criminal Revision No. 162 of 1998, notice was issued to the appellants and appellants had received the notice. Subsequently, when matter was heard on 05.09.2025, by co-ordinate Bech of this Court, none appeared to represent the appellants, hence, amicus curiae was appointed. On 09.03.2026, hearing was concluded and judgment was reserved by co-ordinate Bech of this Court. 8. Thereafter, in order dated 06.04.2026, passed by co- ordinate Bech of this Court, co-ordinate Bech noted that though the matter was allowed to be argued by the learned amicus curiae, but, on verification of orders passed in the instant case, it appeared that notice was not issued to the surviving appellants of Criminal Appeal (DB) No.132 of 1998 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 4 (R) and opposite parties of Criminal Revision No. 162 of 1998 for engaging counsel of their choice. Hence, office was directed to issue notice upon appellants in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.132 of 1998 (R)/ opposite parties of Criminal Revision No. 162 of 1998(R),namely Prem Dan Jojo and Aniket Jojo and the learned Public Prosecutor was directed to get the notice served through the concerned police station and the learned Public Prosecutor was also directed to file affidavit on the issue of service of notice upon the surviving appellants of Criminal Appeal (DB) No.132 of 1998 (R)/ opposite parties of Criminal Revision No. 162 of 1998(R) and the case was ordered to be listed on 04.05.2026. 9. Thereafter, a co-ordinate Bech of this Court heard the matter on 04.05.2026 and noted that notice was served upon the appellants Prem Dan Jojo and Aniket Jojo on 21.04.2026 and 17.04.2026 respectively, intimating about the pendency of the present case, but as per office note, no endeavour has been taken by the said appellants to engage counsel of their own choice. The aforesaid order dated 04.05.2026, passed by the co-ordinate Bech of this Court, is quoted herein below- “1. Reference may be made to the order dated 6th April, 2026 by which we have issued notice upon the surviving appellants of Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 132 of 1998(R)/opposite parties of Cr. Revision No. 162 of 1998(R), namely, Prem Dan Jojo & Aniket Jojo. 2.The steps for service of notice have been taken by Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned Public Prosecutor. 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 5 3.The aforesaid order clearly reflects that the purpose of issuing notice upon is that enabling the surviving appellants/opposite parties to have the knowledge of the pending proceeding of the cases, and if so advised, to engage counsel of their own choice. 4.Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that theaffidavit in terms of the aforesaid order has been filed on 28.04.2026. 5.It has been pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that the knowledge about the pending proceeding is already available which would be evident from the affidavit filed by the State on 11.08.2025. 6.Again, the notice has been served, as has been brought by way of an affidavit dated 28.04.2026. It has been submitted by referring to Para 5 & 6 thereof that the notice has been served upon the appellants Prem Dan Jojo and Aniket Jojo on 21.04.2026 & 17.04.2026, respectively intimating about the pendency of the present case, but as per the office note, no endeavour has been taken to engage counsel of their own. 7.This Court, after having granted such opportunity to both the appellants and they have not chosen to do so by engaging counsel of their own choice, is having no option but to proceed with the matter for hearing. 8. As such, list this matter under the heading for “Hearing” on 7th May, 2026 at 2:15 p.m.” 10. So, in order dated 04.05.2026, co-ordinate Bech of this Court, noted that after having granted such opportunity to both the appellants and appellants have not chosen to do so by engaging counsel of their own choice, is having no option to proceed with the matter for hearing. 11. Thereafter, the instant appeal along with the Criminal Revision have come up before this Court for final adjudication 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 6 Factual Matrix 12. The prosecution case was instituted on the fardbayan of the informant Ganesh Chick (P.W.-8) dated 11.07.1992. 13. The prosecution case, in brief, as per the ferdbeyan of the informant Ganesh Chick (P.W.-8) is that house of the informant Ganesh Chick is opposite to the house of accused Simon Munda (since dead). The elder brother of the informant's father had given about 8 acres of land to Simon Munda on mortgage long year back. Simon Munda was not returning the land, so, there had been a land dispute between the parties and case was instituted and in the year 1983, decree was passed in favour of informant side and in the appeal also decision was passed in favour of informant side. Since then, informant and informant's father Somra Chick (deceased) had been coming in the cultivating possession of the disputed land. But Simon Munda had constructed a house in one of the portions of the disputed land which was connected with a bari, which was being cultivated by the informant. 14. Informant further stated that on 11.07.1992 at 9 am, informant along with his father Somra chick and servant Gandur Chick (P.W-3) were ploughing the aforesaid bari land and when they had already ploughed half of the bari land, in the meantime sons of Simon Munda namely Prem Dan Jojo(appellant no.1) and Aniket Jojo (appellant no.2) came 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 7 there armed with bow and arrow from their house and shot arrows upon them. The arrow shot by the appellant no.1 Prem Dan Jojo hit the informant in his left rib and the arrow shot by the appellant no.2 Aniket Jojo hit Gandur Chick (P.W-3) on his chest. Thereafter, both Prem Dan Jojo (appellant no.1) and Aniket Jojo (appellant no.2) reached near the informant’s father and caught hold him. Then, Simon Munda (since dead) armed with lathi, Simon’s wife Julia Mundain (since dead) armed with tangi and their daughter Chuni Mundain armed with lathi came to informant’s father. Julian Mundain (since dead) inflicted tangi blow upon the informant’s father to which informant ran and caught hold the tangi due to which informant sustained injury on his left hand and remaining accused persons assaulted his father with lathi. 15. Informant further stated that he and Gandur Chick (P.W-3) were frightened and ran towards their house and from there they saw accused persons assaulting his father and killed him and fled away. Informant’s wife Hirawati Devi (P.W.-2) was uprooting grass from the said bari land was also frightened and she also moved away. Shankar Baraik (P.W.- 7) also reached there and had witnessed the occurrence. Informant and other family members had gone to the house of one Dular Baraik, out of fear. 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 8 16. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant FIR being Jaldega P.S. Case No 18/1992 dated 12.07.1992 was registered against the accused persons/appellants under 302/307/34 of IPC. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted u/s 326/307/202/34 of IPC against all the accused. 17. Accordingly, cognizance of the offence was taken and subsequently case was committed to the court of sessions. 18. Charge under Section 302/34 of IPC was framed against all the accused persons including the appellants herein and separate charge were framed under section 307 of IPC against accused Anikep Jojo and Premdan Jojo. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 19. The trial Court, after recording the evidence of witnesses, examination-in-chief and cross-examination, recorded the statement of the accused person, found the charges levelled against the accused persons proved beyond all reasonable doubts. 20. Accordingly, the accused persons including the appellants were found guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC and appellants Aniket Jojo and Premdan Jojo were separately convicted under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code also. 21. The aforesaid order of conviction and sentence is subject matter of the instant appeal. 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 9 Submission of the learned amicus curiae for the appellants: 22. Learned amicus curiae for the appellants has submitted that the impugned Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 23. The following grounds have been taken by the learned amicus curiae for the appellants in assailing the impugned judgment of conviction: - i. It has been contended that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence have been passed against the weight of evidence and, as such, not sustainable in the eye of law being bad in law as well as on facts. ii. It has been contended that learned trial court has committed serious error in law as well as on facts in appreciation of the evidence adduce from the side of the prosecution. iii. It has been contended that learned court below has committed serious error in law by accepting the evidence of the P.W.-8 and P.W.-2 as both being husband and wife respectively are highly interested witnesses and their evidences have not been corroborated either by medical evidence or by any independent witnesses. 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 10 iv. It has been contended that when the background of the admitted land dispute and long-standing enmity between the informant's party at one hand and the appellants on the other, the learned court below ought to have discarded the uncorroborated testimony of the aforesaid two highly interested and partisan witnesses for holding guilty to the appellants. v. It has been contended that the learned court below has completely ignored that the evidence of P.W.-3 Gandur Chick, who had not supported the prosecution story though it is said that he has sustained injury at the hands of the appellants in course of the occurrence. vi. It has been contended that the learned trial court ought to have taken a serious note of the fact that the prosecution has not examined the Investigating Officer of the case and for his non-examination, no cogent explanation has been offered. The non- examination of the Investigating Officer has caused serious prejudice to the defense, of the appellants. vii. It has been contended that learned trial court ought to have considered that the testimony of the prosecution witness P.W.-8 and P.W.-2 were apparently inconsistent with the medical evidence 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 11 adduced of the doctors P.W.-10 and P.W.-11. The learned trial court has also failed to consider that the two independent eye witnesses i.e. P.W-3 and P.W.- 7 have not at all supported the prosecution story. viii. It has been contended that the learned trial court ought to have considered that the place of occurrence i.e. the bari land, at the relevant time of occurrence was in the possession of the appellants party and the informant party were the aggressors. ix. It has been contended that the place of the occurrence is admittedly a bari land quite adjacent to the house of the appellants, whereas the informant's party reside in a house which is at a considerable distance from the place of occurrence. Though they had succeeded in court litigation but the delivery of the possession of the said land was yet to be effected and prior to that they had trespassed into the same. x. It has been contended that the learned court below ought to have considered that the prosecution story has been developed by the prosecution witnesses from one stage to the other to implicate all the members of the appellants family including a minor girl namely Chunni @ Fatima Kumari. But, by adducing defense witness alibi has been proved by 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 12 the defense that on the relevant date and place she was away from the house and was appearing for examination. This shows that the prosecution witnesses have not come before the court with clean hand. xi. It has been contended that the evidence that has come during the trial against the appellants, were not put to them in an unambiguous and clear way in their examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, causing much prejudice to their defense and also causing a vitiating the fact of the entire finding. 24. On the aforesaid premise the learned amicus curiae for the appellant has contended that the impugned judgment and the findings and sentences are bad in law and are fit to be set-aside in the interest of justice. Submission of the learned counsel for the State: 25. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, has submitted by taking the following grounds in defending the impugned judgment. i. The conviction of the appellants under sections 302/34 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code does not suffer from an error, since, ample evidence has been produced by the prosecution. 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 13 ii. The informant himself had seen that the accused persons including the appellants had brutally assaulted the informant’s father with lathi, tangi and bow and arrow due to which he died on the spot and, as such, the impugned judgment does not require any interference. iii. P.W.-3 and P.W.-8 are the injured eye witnesses and both these witnesses were also assaulted by the appellants by bow and arrow, which is supported by the medical evidence of the Doctor P.W.-11. iv. P.W.-2 is an eye witness to the assault on P.W.-3 and P.W.-8 and the Somra Chick (deceased). 26. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, based upon the aforesaid premise, has submitted that the impugned judgment so far as these appellants are concerned, does not suffer from any error and does not require any interference so far as the appellants’ conviction under section sections 302/34 and 307 of the IPC is concerned, hence, the instant appeal is fit to be dismissed. Analysis 27. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgment. 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 14 28. We have also gone through the testimonies of the witnesses as available in the trial court records as also the exhibits. 29. This Court before considering the argument advanced on behalf of the parties is now proceeding to consider the deposition of witnesses, as per the testimony as recorded by learned trial Court. 30. In this case the prosecution had examined altogether 12 witnesses out of whom P.W.-8 Ganesh Chick, the informant of the case and son of the deceased, P.W.-1 is Ishak Baa, P.W.-2 Irawati Devi @ Hirawati Devi, who is the wife of the informant, P.W.-3 Gandur Chick, P.W.-4 Anil Baraik @ Chick, P.W.-5 is Sanika Baraik, P.W.-6 is Janki Braik, P.W.-7 Sankar Baraik, P.W.-9 Loban Lugun, P.W.-10 Dr. Krishna Deo Chaudhary, P.W.-11 Dr. Sudeep Kumar and P.W.-12 Mangarnath Mahto. 31. The extracts of depositions of the prosecution witnesses are being referred herein. 32. P.W.-3, though an injured witness, he was declared hostile. P.W.-7 was also declared hostile. 33. P.W.-1 Ishak Baa, P.W.-9 Loban Lugun and P.W.-12 Mangarnath Mahto, are Advocate Clerks and formal witness. P.W.-1, P.W.-9 and P.W.-12, have proved the formal FIR, endorsement on the fardbeyan and the fardbeyan., which were marked as Ext.-1, Ext.-3 and Ext.-6 respectively. 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 15 34. P.W.-4 Anil Baraik @ Chick, is seizure list witness. He has proved his signature on the seizure list which were marked as Ext.-2 and Ext.-2/1. 35. P.W.-7 Sankar Baraik, is seizure list witness. He has proved his signature on the seizure list to the recovery of one bow, one arrow and a bamboo stick of about 3 feet stained with blood in its one part, which was marked as Ext.-2/3. P.W.-7 has also proved his signature on the seizure list to the recovery of blood stained earth from the place of occurrence and one arrow stained with blood, which was marked as Ext.-2/4. P.W.-7 Sankar Baraik was declared hostile. 36. P.W.-5 Sanika Baraik, is witness to inquest report. He has stated in his evidence that he had seen the body of deceased Somra Baraik in Ramjari village. He has proved his signature on the inquest report, which was marked as Ext.- 2/2. 37. P.W.-2 Irawati Devi @ Hirawati Devi, is the wife of the informant. She has stated in her evidence that on the day of occurrence at about 9 am in the morning, her husband Ganesh Chick, Gandura Chick (P.W.-3) and her father-in- law Somra Chick (deceased) were ploughing the alleged land and she was uprooting the grass and in the alleged land, there is house of accused Simon Munda (since dead). In the meantime, Simon’s son Premdan Jojo and Aniket Munda 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 16 armed with bows and arrows came out of their house and accused Premdan shot an arrow which hit her husband Ganesh Chick (P.W.-8) on the left side of his rib and the arrow shot by accused Aniket hit Gandur (P.W.-3) on his chest. Thereafter, the accused persons assaulted Somra Chick (deceased). Premdan Jojo and Aniket Jojo assaulted him with arrow, Julia assaulted him with tangi and Simon assaulted him with lathi as a result her father-in-law died there itself. Later on, out of fear they went to the house of Dular Chik. After getting information about the occurrence, police came and took Ganesh Chick and Gandur Chick to Orga where they were treated and from there, they were taken to Bano Hospital for treatment. 38. In her cross-examination, she has stated that litigation continued for eight years between Simon Munda and her father-in-law Somra Chick (deceased) for the land (place of occurrence). Simon Munda had taken the place of occurrence land and other land on mortgage from her father- in-law Somra Chick (deceased). There are two houses, a courtyard, well and bagan (Garden) of the accused Simon Munda on the alleged land. The land belongs to her family and they are in the possession of the land, but accused persons claim the land. She has further stated that first of all Premdan and Aniket, came out of their house armed with bow and arrow 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 17 and from the middle of the courtyard, arrow was shot. Firstly, Premdan had shot arrow and thereafter, Aniket had shot arrow which hit on the chest of Gandur Chik. Arrow which pierced into the chest of Gandur Chik, was removed at Bano Hospital and arrow which pierced into the body of Ganesh was removed and given to the police. Aniket had shot arrow on Gandur Chik from a distance of two yards and when arrow was shot, then, Gandur (deceased) did not fall down and at that time she was at a distance of 10-15 steps from her father-in-law and her husband (Ganesh). After, shooting arrow on her husband Ganesh and Gandur Chick, the accused Premdan and Aniket, had shot arrow on her father-in-law. One arrow pierced into the chest of Somra Chik (deceased) and was broken. 39. P.W.-3 is Gandur Chick and he has stated in his evidence that at the day of occurrence he was residing at village Ramjari, P.S. Jaldega, in the house of Somra Chick (deceased) and he was working in the house of the deceased. 40. On the alleged day and time of occurrence, he along with the Somra Chick (deceased) and Ganesh Chick (P.W.-8) were ploughing the land of the Somra Chick (deceased) at village Ramjari and the wife of Ganesh Chick was uprooting the grass. There is no house on the land. While they were ploughing the land, the accused Simon Munda came and restrained them from ploughing the land. He sustained 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 18 injury on his chest with arrow and Ganesh Chick (P.W.-8) also sustained injury on his right rib with arrow. He flew away from there, so he cannot say as to whether any other person was injured. Somra Chick (deceased) died. 41. To the court question, P.W.-3 stated he cannot say how Somra Chick died and that he cannot identify as to who shot arrow on them. He did not see who injured Ganesh Chick (P.W.-8). At this stage P.W.-3 was declared hostile on behalf of prosecution. 42. In his cross-examination on behalf of the prosecution P.W.-3 stated that arrow was taken out of his body at Bano Hospital. 43. P.W.-8 Ganesh Chick is the informant of the case and son of Somra Chick (deceased). Informant has stated in his evidence that on 11.07.1992 at 9 am, in the morning, he, Gandur Chick (P.W.-3) and his father Somra Chick (deceased) were ploughing their bari land. When they had ploughed their half land, then, sons of Simon Munda namely accused Premdan Jojo and Aniket Jojo came out of their house and began to shoot an arrow. He was shot arrow by Premdan Jojo on his left rib and Gandur Chick (P.W.-3) sustained injuries on his chest by an arrow shot by the accused Anikat. Thereafter, Julia Mundain armed with tangi and Simon Munda armed with lathi came out of their house and Julia Mundain attacked his father with tangi, but he 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 19 rushed and stopped the tangi blow with his hand as a result he sustained injury on his finger of left hand. Then Gandur Chik (P.W.-3) and he fled away from there and his wife Hirawati Devi (P.W.-2), who was uprooting grass of the land also went to the house, out of fear. Accused persons killed his father (deceased) by assaulting him with arrow, lathi and tangi. 44. Informant further stated that he sent Anuu Baraik to Orga Out post to inform the police, then the police arrived there and at that time they were, in the house of Dular Baraik. Police had taken him and Gandur Chick (P.W.-3) to Orga to a compounder for treatment and from there they were taken to Bano Government Hospital for treatment. They were admitted there and at about 8 pm in the night, police had taken his statement and statement of Gandur Chick, Hirawati Devi and Shankar Baraik. Police had recorded his fardbeyan at Bano Hospital. 45. Informant further stated that place of occurrence land to which they were ploughing was given by elder brother of his father namely Sukar Baraik to the accused Simon Munda (since dead) and that land was not being returned by Simon Munda and for the said land, incident occurred. Police had recorded his statement in diary and took his signature on a plan paper (a blank paper) and he identified his signature on the fardbeyan which was marked as Ext.- 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 20 2/5. According to him the paper was blank when he put his signature on that paper. 46. In his cross-examination, informant stated that place of occurrence land bears khat no. 25, Plot no. 1451 and area is 51 decimals. Place of occurrence land and other lands were in possession of Simon Munda and litigation started for the said land in 1980, but from before land was in possession of the accused Simon Munda. In 1983, karamchari, had given possession of the place of occurrence land along with other land. Possession of the land was given to his father Somra Chick (deceased), and they have documents giving possession of the land, but, has not produced said documents in the court. Informant further stated that at the place of occurrence, there are two houses, of Simon Munda, which are opposite to each other. The house of accused persons is 50-60 feets away from his house. They had left, Simon Munda Courtyard, while ploughing the land. 47. P.W.-10 is Dr. Krishna Deo Chaudhary, who had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Somra Chick(deceased). P.W.-10 had stated in his evidence that on 13.07.1992, he was posted as Medical Officer at Sub- divisional Hospital, Simdega, and on same day at 8 am, he had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Somra Chick(deceased). Doctor stated that rigor mortis was present in right arm whereas left arm and both legs were 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 21 loose. Doctor sated that there was decomposition with blister formation on the general body surface with immature magots on the wound side, both eyes were closed, mouth opened with protrusion of tongue about one inch outside the teeth margin, bleeding from left ear. External injuries: i. Lacerated wound 2"x1"x skin deep on the left side of parietal bone just half to ¾" above the left ear. There was fracture of same bone. ii. Lacerated wound 2"x½"x ½" on the lateral side of lateral angle of left eye with fracture of bone iii. Lacerated wound 1"x1"x skin deep on the occipital region of head; there was no fracture of occipital bone. iv. Perforating lacerated wound of 2½"x½"x2" on the right side of chest in the region of 4th, 5th and 6th inter-costal ribs with fracture of the same caused by arrow made of iron measuring about 3½"x2" was present in the dead body. 48. Doctor P.W.-10 further stated that on opening the injury No. (i) and (ii) there was fracture of corresponding bone with tearing of meninges and maximum laceration of brain matter surface. There was intra-cerebral also. On opening the chest there was fracture of the right 4th, 5th and 6th inter- costal ribs and right lung was pierced by arrow about half to two inches. There was black tarry clotted blood around the wound. All the injuries were antemortem and grievous in nature. Injury no.(i),(ii) and(iii) were caused by hard and 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 22 blunt object such as lathi and tangi and injury no.(iv) was caused by arrow. 49. Doctor P.W.-10 stated that time elapsed since injury as well as death of the deceased about 48 to 72 hours. Doctor opined that death of the deceased was caused by comma and syncope due to head injury and injury to the right side of lung due to iron arrow and excessive hemorrhage from the above-mentioned injuries. Doctor proved the postmortem report which was marked as Ext.-4. 50. P.W.-11 is Dr. Sudeep Kumar and he had examined the injured Informant Ganesh Chick (P.W.-8) and Gandur Chick (P.W.-3). P.W-11 had stated in his evidence that on 11.07.1992, he was posted as medical officer in-charge at Primary Health Centre, Bano. At 2.10 pm, he examined Ganesh Chick (P.W.-8) and found following injuries on his person- i. one penetrated wound 1"x½"x½"over back of the chest below left scapula region. ii. One abrasion over lateral side of left ring finger. 51. Doctor P.W.-11 opined that injury no.(i) was grievous and injury No. (ii) was simple in nature. Injury no.(i) was caused by sharp pointed arrow and injury no.(ii) was caused by hard and blunt substance such as lathi and blunt portion of tangi. The age of injury was within 24 hours. Doctor has 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 23 proved the injury report of Ganesh Chick (P.W.-8), which was marked as Ext.-5. 52. Doctor P.W.-11, on the same day had examined Gandur Chick (P.W.-3) and had found one penetrated wound 1" x 1½" x 1/4" over his intercostal space between 2nd and 3rd ribs on the left side. Doctor opined that injury was caused by sharp and pointed arrow and the injury was grievous in nature. The age of the injury was within 24 hours. Doctor proved the injury report of Gandur Chick (P.W.-3), which was marked as Ext.-5/1. 53. In cross-examination, Doctor P.W.-11 stated that there was an arrow intact in the body of one of the injured and he took it out of the arrow from his body. 54. Learned trial Court, based upon the testimonies of witnesses and material available on record, has passed the impugned judgment and convicted and sentenced the accused persons (appellant herein) to undergo RI for ten years under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, RI for 5 years under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 55. Therefore, this Court, on the basis of documents available on record as exhibited and testimony of the witnesses, is to see as to whether there is sufficient material to attract the offence under Section 302/34 and section 307 IPC against the appellants. 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 24 56. This Court, on the basis of aforesaid factual aspect vis-à-vis argument advanced on behalf of parties, is now proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence by formulating following questions to be answered by this Court- i. Whether one of the injured witnesses P.W.-3, turning hostile, his evidence shall be discarded as a whole? ii. Whether the material which has come in course of trial is sufficient to attract the offence committed under section 307 IPC and under section 302/34 of IPC against the preset appellants? iii. Whether non-examination of the Investigating Officer is fatal to the prosecution case? 57. On going through the evidences of the prosecution witnesses, this court finds that informant party had mortgaged their disputed land along with the other land to the accused Simon Munda (since dead) long time before, but, thereafter, the lands were not returned by accused Simon Munda (since dead), which, resulted in dispute between the parties. On the day of occurrence on 11.07.1992 at about 9 a.m. in the morning, informant Ganesh Chick (P.W.-8) along with his father Somra Chick (deceased) and his servant Gandour Chick (P.W-3) were ploughing the disputed land and informant’s wife namely Irawati Devi @ Hirawati Devi (P.W.-2) was uprooting the grass there. In the meantime, both the appellants Prem Dan Jojo (appellant no.1) and 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 25 Aniket Jojo (appellant no.2) came there armed with bow and arrow, from their house and shot arrows upon them. It is alleged that arrow shot by the appellant no.1 Prem Dan Jojo hit the informant in his left rib and the arrow shot by the appellant no.2 Aniket Jojo hit Gandour Chick (P.W-3) on his chest. Thereafter, accused persons including the appellants assaulted Somra Chick (deceased), with lathi, tangi, bow and arrow, as a result, Somra Chick, died on the spot itself. 58. Hence, as per the prosecution case, allegation against both the remaining appellants herein is that they had assaulted the informant Ganesh Chik (P.W.-8) and informant’s servant Gandour Chick (P.W.-3) with bow and arrow and injured both of them and thereafter, appellants herein along with other accused persons had assaulted Somra Chick (deceased) with lathi, tangi, bow and arrow, as a result, Somra chick, died on the spot itself. Re: Issue No. (i) 59. Regarding this issue whether one of the injured witnesses P.W.-3 Gandur Chik, turning hostile, his evidence shall be discarded as a whole? 60. This court finds that P.W.-3 Gandur Chik, was declared hostile on the point that he did not identify the accused persons, who had shot arrow on him. 61. At this juncture it would be pertinent to see the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court on the issue 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 26 of hostile witness. The law is well settled that merely because the witness is declared as hostile, whole of his evidence is not liable to be thrown away. 62. In case of Attar Singh v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 11 SCC 719, Hon’ble Apex Court held that merely because a witness becomes hostile it would not result in throwing out the prosecution case, but the court must see the relative effect of his testimony. If the evidence of a hostile witness is corroborated by other evidence, there is no legal bar to convict the accused. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that testimony of a hostile witness is acceptable to the extent it is corroborated by that of a reliable witness. It is, therefore, open to the court to consider the evidence and there is no objection to a part of that evidence being made use of in support of the prosecution or in support of the accused. Paragraph-14 to 17 of this judgment is quoted herein below- “14. We have meticulously considered the arguments advanced on this vital aspect of the matter on which the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant is based. This compels us to consider as to whether the conviction and sentence recorded on the basis of the testimony of the witness who has been declared hostile could be relied upon for recording conviction of the appellant-accused. But it was difficult to overlook the relevance and value of the evidence of even a hostile witness while considering as to what extent their evidence could be allowed to be relied upon and used by the prosecution. It could not be ignored that when a witness is declared hostile and when his testimony is not shaken 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 27 on material points in the cross-examination, there is no ground to reject his testimony in toto as it is well settled by a catena of decisions that the court is not precluded from taking into account the statement of a hostile witness altogether and it is not necessary to discard the same in toto and can be relied upon partly. If some portion of the statement of the hostile witness inspires confidence, it can be relied upon. He cannot be thrown out as wholly unreliable. This was the view expressed by this Court in Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka [(1980) 1 SCC 30 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 59] whereby the learned Judges of the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Karnataka High Court which had discarded the evidence of a hostile witness in its entirety. 15. Similarly, other High Courts in Gulshan Kumar v. State [1993 Cri LJ 1525 (Del)] as also Kunwar v. State of U.P. [1993 Cri LJ 3421 (All)] as also Haneefa v. State [1993 Cri LJ 2125 (Ker)] have held that it is not necessary to discard the evidence of the hostile witness in toto and can be relied upon partly. So also, in State of U.P. v. Chet Ram [(1989) 2 SCC 425 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 388 : AIR 1989 SC 1543 : 1989 Cri LJ 1785] , it was held that if some portion of the statement of the hostile witness inspires confidence it can be relied upon and the witness cannot be termed as wholly unreliable. It was further categorically held in Shatrughan v. State of M.P. [1993 Cri LJ 120 (MP)] that hostile witness is not necessarily a false witness. Granting of a permission by the court to cross-examine his own witness does not amount to adjudication by the court as to the veracity of a witness. It only means a declaration that the witness is adverse or unfriendly to the party calling him and not that the witness is untruthful. This was the view expressed by this Court in Sat Paul v. Delhi Admn. [(1976) 1 SCC 727 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 160 : AIR 1976 SC 294] 16. Thus, merely because a witness becomes hostile it would not result in throwing out the prosecution case, but the court must see the relative effect of his testimony. If the evidence of a hostile witness is corroborated by other 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 28 evidence, there is no legal bar to convict the accused. Thus testimony of a hostile witness is acceptable to the extent it is corroborated by that of a reliable witness. It is, therefore, open to the court to consider the evidence and there is no objection to a part of that evidence being made use of in support of the prosecution or in support of the accused. 17. While examining the instant matter on the anvil of the aforesaid legal position laid down by this Court in several pronouncements, we have noticed that the support rendered by the daughter Mangibai approving the incident should be accepted as reliable part of evidence in spite of she being a hostile witness. The witness Mangibai's evidence pushes the accused with his bag to the wall and the accused is obliged to explain because her evidence shows that the accused was the only person in the company of the deceased soon before the death. The defence of the accused that Nagibai's injury was a result of fall is ruled out by medical evidence and the details available of the location in the panchnama of offence. The courts below thus have rightly drawn some support from the reports of the chemical analysis since all the articles of the victims and clothes of the accused are found having bloodstains of human Blood Group A. This was in view of the fact that the results of the analysis for determination of the blood group of the victim and accused were conclusive when blood sent in phial was analysed. Thus, the evidence of the daughter of the deceased coupled with other material as also evidence of other witnesses i.e. Ramesh, Khandu, Bhatu and Makhan, provided a complete chain and the prosecution successfully proved that the incident occurred in the manner and the place which was alleged.” 63. Again, in case of Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that even if a witness is treated as “hostile” and is cross- examined, his evidence cannot be written off altogether but 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 29 must be considered with due care and circumspection and that part of the testimony which is creditworthy must be considered and acted upon. Relevant paragraph of this judgment is quoted herein below- “87. Therefore, this Court cautioned that even if a witness is treated as “hostile” and is cross-examined, his evidence cannot be written off altogether but must be considered with due care and circumspection and that part of the testimony which is creditworthy must be considered and acted upon. It is for the Judge as a matter of prudence to consider the extent of evidence which is creditworthy for the purpose of proof of the case. In other words, the fact that a witness has been declared “hostile” does not result in an automatic rejection of his evidence. Even, the evidence of a “hostile witness” if it finds corroboration from the facts of the case may be taken into account while judging the guilt of the accused. Thus, there is no legal bar to raise a conviction upon a “hostile witness” testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence.” 64. Again, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of C. Muniappan and Ors v. State of T. N ,(2010) 9 SCC 567, reiterated that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole, and relevant parts thereof which are admissible in law, can be used by the prosecution or the defence. Paragraph 81 to 83 of this judgment is quoted herein below- “81. It is settled legal proposition that: “6. … the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 30 the extent their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof.” 82. In State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra this Court held that (at SCC p. 363, para 7) evidence of a hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused but required to be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence can be relied upon. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Balu Sonba Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, Gagan Kanojia v. State of Punjab, Radha Mohan Singh v. State of U.P., Sarvesh Narain Shukla v. Daroga Singh and Subbu Singh v. State. 83. Thus, the law can be summarised to the effect that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole, and relevant parts thereof which are admissible in law, can be used by the prosecution or the defence.” 65. Reverting back to the instant case, injured P.W.-3 Gandur Chik has stated in his examination-in-chief that on the day of occurrence he along with Somra Chick (deceased) and Ganesh Chik (Informant) were ploughing the land and wife of informant Ganesh Chik (i.e. P.W.-2 Hirawati Devi) was uprooting grass and in the meantime Simon Munda (since dead) came alone and forbade them to plough the land. P.W.-3 has stated that he sustained injury on his chest with arrow and Ganesh Chick (P.W.-8) also sustained injury on his right rib with arrow. P.W.-3 further stated that he had fled away. To the court question, P.W.-3 Gandur Chik had stated that he cannot identify who had shot arrow on him and on informant Ganesh Chik (P.W.-8). 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 31 66. Ongoing to the evidence of the P.W.-11 Doctor, this court finds that, P.W.-11 Doctor had examined the injured P.W.-3 Gandur Chick, on the date of occurrence itself and had found one penetrated wound 1" x 1½" x 1/4" over his intercostal space between 2nd and 3rd ribs on the left side. Doctor had opined that aforesaid injury was grievous in nature and were caused by sharp pointed arrow. 67. Here, it is pertinent to note that P.W.-2 Irawati Devi @ Hirawati Devi had stated in her cross-examination that arrow which pierced into the chest of Gandur Chik, was removed at Bano Hospital and Doctor P.W.-11, who had examined the injured Gandur Chick (P.W.-3), in his cross- examination, had stated that there was an arrow intact in the body of one of the injured and he took it out from his body. 68. Hence, from the medical evidence of doctor P.W.-11, it is proved that on the day of occurrence Gandur Chick (P.W.-3), was present at the place of occurrence and he had sustained one penetrated wound injury on his ribs on the left side due to arrow shot by the accused persons/ appellants herein. 69. Hence, as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court on the issue of hostile witness, as referred in the preceding paragraph, it is considered view of this Court that in the present case, testimony of P.W.-3 Gandur Chick, as 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 32 stated by him in his examination-in-chief, to the extent that on the day of occurrence he along with Somra Chick (deceased) and informant Ganesh Chik (P.W.-8) were ploughing the land and wife of Ganesh Chik (i.e. P.W.-2 Hirawati Devi) was removing grass and in the meantime Simon Munda (since dead) came and forbade them to plough the land and he and Ganesh Chick(informant) had sustained injury by arrow, can be taken into account as an evidence, as it supports the prosecution case to this extent. 70. Accordingly, the Issue No.(i) has been answered. Re: Issue No.(ii) 71. Coming to issue no.(ii) i.e. whether the material which has come in course of trial is sufficient to attract the offence committed under Section 307 IPC and under Section 302/ 34 of IPC against the preset appellants? 72. This court finds from the impugned judgment that the appellants Anikep Jojo @ Aniket Jojo and Prem Dan Jojo were convicted under Section 307 IPC separately for attempting to commit murder of Gandur Chick (P.W-3) and Ganesh Chick (P.W.-8) respectively. 73. Hence, firstly this Court is proceeding to examine whether the prosecution has been able to prove charge under section 307 of IPC against the both the appellants for 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 33 causing injury to the informant P.W.-8 Ganesh Chick and P.W.-3 Gandur Chick. 74. Before we analyse and appreciate the circumstances that have weighed with the trial court, this Court thinks it apposite to refer to certain authorities pertaining to evidentiary value of the injured eye witness. 75. The law is well settled that the judgment of conviction can be passed on the basis of the evidence of injured witnesses which has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly, as per the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Mansingh, (2003) 10 SCC 414. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is being referred hereunder as :- . “The evidence of injured witnesses has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. Merely because there was no mention of a knife in the first information report, that does not wash away the effect of the evidence tendered by the injured witnesses PWs 4 and 7. Minor discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of otherwise acceptable evidence. The circumstances highlighted by the High Court to attach vulnerability to the evidence of the injured witnesses are clearly inconsequential. It is fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the accused that though mere non-mention of the assailants’ names in the requisition memo of injury is not sufficient to discard the prosecution version in entirety, according to him it is a doubtful circumstance and forms a vital link to determine whether the prosecution version is credible. It is a settled 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 34 position in law that omission to mention the name of the assailants in the requisition memo perforce does not render the prosecution version brittle.” 76. Likewise, in case of Neeraj Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2024) 3 SCC 125, at paragraph-22 of the judgment Hon’ble Apex Court held as follow- “22. The importance of injured witness in a criminal trial cannot be overstated. Unless there are compelling circumstances or evidence placed by the defence to doubt such a witness, this has to be accepted as extremely valuable evidence in a criminal trial.” 77. Further, in case of Birbal Nath v. State of Rajasthan, (2024) 15 SCC 190, Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that the statement of an injured eyewitness is an important piece of evidence which cannot be easily discarded by a court. Minor discrepancies do not matter. Paragraph-31 of the said judgment is quoted herein below- “31. The High Court has gone wrong in its appreciation of the case, both on facts as well as on law. The statement of an injured eyewitness is an important piece of evidence which cannot be easily discarded by a court. Minor discrepancies do not matter. In State of M.P. v. Mansingh5 where conviction of the accused by the trial court, inter alia, under Section 302, was set aside by the High Court on the so-called discrepancies of an injured witness this Court while allowing the State’s appeal against the acquittal said this: (SCC p. 419, para 9) “9. The evidence of injured witnesses has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. Merely because there was no mention of a knife in the first information report, that does not wash away the effect of the evidence tendered by the injured witnesses, PWs 4 and 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 35 7. Minor discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of otherwise acceptable evidence. The circumstances highlighted by the High Court to attach vulnerability to the evidence of the injured witnesses are clearly inconsequential.” 78. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 13 SCC 365, has laid down certain legal principles, which the Courts are required to keep in mind while appreciating the evidence of an injured eyewitness. Paragraphs 26 to 27 of the said judgment are being referred hereunder as- “26. When the evidence of an injured eyewitness is to be appreciated, the undernoted legal principles enunciated by the courts are required to be kept in mind: 26.1. The presence of an injured eyewitness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition. 26.2. Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused. 26.3. The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. 26.4. The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions. 26.5. If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence. 26.6. The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 36 normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded. 27. In assessing the value of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, two principal considerations are whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly, whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence. In respect of both these considerations, circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or established by other evidence tending to improbabilise their presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a court would attach to their evidence. Although in cases where the plea of the accused is a mere denial, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be examined on its own merits, where the accused raise a definite plea or put forward a positive case which is inconsistent with that of the prosecution, the nature of such plea or case and the probabilities in respect of it will also have to be taken into account while assessing the value of the prosecution evidence.” 79. Thus, it is evident that for proving the charge on the basis of the evidence of injured eye witness, it would be necessary to prove the presence of injured eyewitness at the time and place of the occurrence unless there are material contradictions in the deposition of injured eye witness. The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions. 80. Hence, in present case, this court is proceeding to find out the place of occurrence, where Somra Chick (deceased) was attacked and killed by the accused persons 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 37 including the appellants herein and Gandur Chick (P.W.-3) and informant Ganesh Chick (P.W.-8), who were attacked by both the appellants with bow and arrow due to which both of them also sustained injuries. 81. In this case though investigating officer has not been examined, hence, this Court is taking recourse of informant Ganesh Chik Baraik (P.W.-8), Hirawati Devi (P.W.-2) and one of the seizure list witness Anil Baraik @ Chick (P.W.-4), to ascertain the place of occurrence. 82. Regarding the place of occurrence, informant Ganesh Chick Baraik (P.W.-8) in his cross-examination, had deposed that the place of occurrence of the land bears Khata no. 25 and Plot no. 1451 and the area of the land is 51 Decimal. Informant has also stated that at the place of occurrence, there are two mud tiled roof houses of accused Simon Munda (deceased), which are opposite to each other and in between both the houses there is open space like courtyard. Informant further stated that his house is at a distance of about 50-60 feet from the accused persons house and nearby the house of accused persons, there is house of Ramcharan Baraik, Ful Singh Baraik, Dullar Baraik, Marsal Dang, Sugar Jojo etc. 83. Likewise, Hirawati Devi (P.W.-2) also in her cross- examination had deposed that incident of assault occurred 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 38 one-two steps away to the east of courtyarded in the bari land, which is disputed plot. 84. P.W.-4 Anil Baraik @ Chick, is seizure list witness and he has also stated in his evidence that he had seen the body of Somra Chick (deceased) in the courtyard of accused Simon Munda. 85. The learned trial Court also in its impugned judgment had noted that place of occurrence land is bari land, which is disputed. 86. Hence, from the evidence of Ganesh Chick Baraik (P.W.-8), Hirawati Devi (P.W.-2) and one of the seizure list witness Anil Baraik @ Chick (P.W.-4), this court finds that place of occurrence is bari land, which is disputed. 87. Now, the place of occurrence has been proved, this Court is proceeding to test the veracity of the charges under section 307 of IPC against both the appellants. 88. This court has gone into the testimony of informant P.W.-8 Ganesh Chick and P.W.-3 Gandur Chick, Hirawati Devi (P.W.-2) and the Doctor P.W-11, who had examined the P.W.-8 and P.W.-3. 89. Informant P.W.-8 Ganesh Chik Baraik has stated in his evidence that on 11.07.1992, at 9 A.M., in the morning when he, Gandur Chik (P.W.-3) and his father Somra Chick (deceased) and his wife Hirawati Devi(P.W.-2) were ploughing their bari land, in the meantime, accused persons including 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 39 the appellants Prem Dan Jojo and Aniket Jojo, both armed with bow and arrow came out of their house and began shooting arrow on them as a result informant sustained injury on his left rib by arrow shot by appellant Prem Dan Jojo and arrow shot by Aniket Jojo hit on the chest of the Gandur Chik (P.W.-3). 90. In his cross-examination also informant Ganesh Chick (P.W.-8), had stated that firstly appellants Prem Dan and Aniket came out of the house and started shooting arrow and at time they were ploughing field at a distance of ten feet and he had sustained injury from arrow shot by appellant Prem Dan Jojo (appellant no.1). 91. Further, P.W.-11 Doctor had examined Ganesh Chick (P.W.-8) on the same day i.e. on 11.07.1992 at about 2.10 P.M and had found one penetrated wound measuring 1"x½"x½" over back of the chest below left scapula region. Doctor opined that injury was caused by sharp and pointed arrow and the injury was grievous in nature. 92. So, ocular evidence regarding arrow shot on the informant Ganesh Chick (P.W.-8) is supported by the medical evidence of the Doctor P.W.-11, who had examined him. 93. Hence, the charge under section 307 of IPC is proved against the appellant Prem Dan Jojo for attempting to 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 40 commit murder of informant Ganesh Chik (P.W.-8) by shooting arrow, which caused grievous injury to him. 94. Further, P.W.-3 Gandur Chik, is another injured witness of the incident, though he did not identify the accused, who had caused, arrow shot injury to him and hence, he was declared hostile on the point of identification of the assailant, as has been discussed in the preceding paragraph while dealing issue no.(i). 95. But, P.W.-3 Gandur Chik has stated in his examination-in-chief that on the day and time of occurrence when they were ploughing the field, he had sustained injury by arrow shot on his chest. 96. Again, Hirawati Devi (P.W.-2), who was uprooting grass at the place of occurrence has stated in her examination-in-chief that Aniket Jojo (Appellant no.2) had shot an arrow which hit on the chest of Gandur Chik (P.W.- 3). In her cross-examination also P.W.-2 stated that appellant Aniket Jojo had shot arrow, which hit at the chest of Gandur (P.W.-3) and the arrow pierced into the chest of Gandur (P.W.-3), which was removed at Bano Hospital, which finds support from the evidence of Doctor P.W.-11, who had examined him and had stated in his cross- examination that there was an arrow intact in the body of one of the injured and he took it out from his body. 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 41 97. Again, informant Ganesh Chick (P.W.-8), who is an injured eye witness, had also stated in his evidence that arrow shot by Aniket Jojo (Appellant no.2), had hit the chest of Gandur Chik (P.W.-3). 98. Further, P.W.-11 Doctor had examined Gandur Baraik (P.W.-3) on the same day and he had found one penetrated wound 1" x 1½" x 1/4" over his intercostal space between 2nd and 3rd ribs on the left side. Doctor had opined that aforesaid injury was grievous in nature and were caused by sharp pointed arrow. 99. Hence, from the ocular evidence of P.W.-2 and informant P.W-8 and medical evidence of Doctor P.W.-11, it is established that on the day of incident, Gandur Baraik (P.W.-3), was present at the place of occurrence and he was injured. 100. Though, Gandur Baraik (P.W.-3), did not identify, who had shot arrow on him, but, injured informant P.W.-8 and eye witness P.W.-2, both have stated in their evidence that arrow shot by Aniket Jojo (appellant no.2) had hit on the chest of the Gandur Chik (P.W.-3). 101. So, the charge under section 307 of IPC is proved against the appellant Aniket Jojo @ Anikep Jojo for attempting to commit murder of P.W.-3 Gandur Baraik, by shooting arrow on his chest, which caused grievous injury to him. 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 42 102. Now, coming to the charge under section 302/ 34 of IPC against the preset appellants, this court finds that four accused persons including the appellants herein were convicted by the learned trial Court under section 302/34 of IPC, for committing murder of Somra Chick (deceased). 103. But, during the pendency of the appeal Simon Jojo and Julia Mundain have died, as discussed in the preceding paragraph. 104. Hence, culpability of only both the present appellants for their conviction under section 302/34 IPC, is required to be decided in the present appeal. 105. To examine the veracity of charge under section 302/ 34 of IPC against the preset appellants, this Court finds that Hirawati Devi (P.W.-2) is an eyewitness to the incident of assault on Somra Chick (deceased) and on both the injured P.W-3 and P.W.-8. 106. Hirawati Devi (P.W.-2) had stated in her examination- in-chief that accused persons had assaulted Somra Chick (deceased). Prem Dan Jojo (appellant no.1) and Aniket Jojo (appellant no.2) had assaulted Somra Chick (deceased) with arrow, Julia (since dead) assaulted him with tangi and Simon (since dead) assaulted him with lathi as a result her father- in-law died there itself. 107. In her cross-examination also, P.W.-2 had deposed that after, shooting arrow on Ganesh Chick (P.W.-8) and 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 43 Gandur Chick (P.W.-3), the accused Prem Dan Jojo (appellant no.1) and Aniket Jojo (appellant no.2), had shot arrow on her father-in-law (i.e. deceased Somra Chick) and one arrow pierced into the chest of Somra Chik (deceased) and was broken. 108. Further, Informant Ganesh Chick (P.W.-8), who is also an injured witness had also stated in his evidence that accused persons had killed his father (deceased) by assaulting him with arrow, lathi and tangi. 109. Coming to the medical evidence, this court finds that P.W.-10 Dr. Krishna Deo Chaudhary, had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Somra Chick (deceased). Doctor had found following external injuries on the body of the deceased- i Lacerated wound 2"x1"x skin deep on the left side of parietal bone just half to ¾" above the left ear. There was fracture of same bone. i.Lacerated wound 2"x½"x ½" on the lateral side of lateral angle of left eye with fracture of bone ii.Lacerated wound 1"x1"x skin deep on the occipital region of head; there was no fracture of occipital bone. iii. Perforating lacerated wound of 2½"x½"x2" on the right side of chest in the region of 4th, 5th and 6th inter-costal ribs with fracture of the same caused by arrow made of iron measuring about 3½"x2" was present in the dead body. 110. This Court from the post mortem report of Somra Chick (deceased), finds that out of the four aforesaid injuries found on the body of the deceased, the fourth injury is perforating lacerated wound of 2½"x½"x2" on the right side of 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 44 chest in the region of 4th, 5th and 6th inter-costal ribs with fracture of the same caused by arrow made of iron measuring about 3½"x2" was present in the dead body. 111. Doctor P.W.-10 has opined that injury no.(iv) was caused by arrow. 112. Hence, injury no.(iv) caused by arrow resulting in death of Somra Chick (deceased) is attributed to both the present appellants which finds support from the consistent ocular evidence of the eye witness P.W.-2 and injured witness P.W-8 (Informant), that both the appellants herein were armed with bow and arrow and had shot arrow. Doctor P.W.-10, had also found that injury no.(iv) sustained by the deceased was caused by arrow. 113. So, on the basis of ocular evidence of P.W-2 and P.W- 8 and the medical evidence of the Doctor P.W.-10, the charge under section 302/34 of IPC is proved against the appellants Prem Dan Jojo and Aniket Jojo @ Anikep Jojo, for committing the murder of Somra Chick. 114. Accordingly, issue no. (ii) has been answered. Re: issue no.(iii) 115. Regarding the issue whether non-examination of the Investigating Officer is fatal to the prosecution case? 116. Learned amicus curiae for the appellants has submitted that due to non-examination of the investigating 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 45 officer, prosecution has not been able to prove the place of occurrence and has caused prejudice to the appellants. 117. In the aforesaid context it needs to refer herein the settled connotation of law that non-examination of the Investigating Officer is not fatal to the prosecution case if the eyewitnesses are credible, trustworthy, and of "sterling quality" and if ocular evidence is reliable and corroborated by other evidence the absence of the investigating officer does not destroy the case of the prosecution. 118. The Apex Court in the case of Ramdeo v. State of U.P., reported in 1995 Supl. (1) SCC, 547, has held that it is always desirable for the prosecution to examine the Investigating Officer. However, non-examination of the Investigating Officer does not in any way create any dent in the prosecution case, much less affect the credibility or otherwise trustworthy testimony of the eye witness. 119. In the case of Ambika Prasad v. State (Delhi Admn.) AIR 2000 SC 718, it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that non examination of Investigating Officer could not be a ground for disbelieving eye witnesses. 120. Further in the case of Bahadur Naik v. State of Bihar, AIR 2000 SC, 1582, 2000 Cri.L.J. 2466 it was held by the Apex Court that non examination of an Investigating Officer was of no consequence when it could not be shown 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 46 as to what prejudice had been caused to the appellant by such non-examination. 121. The Hon’ble Apex Court in almost similar circumstances in the case of Ram Gulam Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, 2001 AIR, SCW 3802 has observed that if there are witnesses who have given credible and believable evidence as to the place of occurrence then their evidence cannot be discarded merely because the Investigating Officer was not examined. For ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under: “In our view, in this case also non examination of Investigating Officer has caused no prejudice at all. All that Mr. Mishra could submit was that the examination of the Investigating Officer would have shown that the occurrence had taken place not in the courtyard but outside on the road. The Investigating Officer was not an eye-witness. The body had already been removed by the Appellants. The Investigating Officer, therefore, could not have given any evidence as to the actual place of occurrence. Their were witnesses who have given credible and believable evidence as to the place of occurrence. Their evidence cannot be discarded merely because the Investigating Officer was not examined. The non- examination of the Investigating Officer has not lead to any prejudice to the Appellants. We, therefore, see no substance in this submission.” 122. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law this Court has gone through the inquest report and finds that dead body of the deceased was found near the courtyard of the accused Simon Munda (since dead). Anil Baraik (P.W.- 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 47 4), who is one of the seizure list witnesses, had also deposed that he had seen dead body of Somra Chick (deceased) in the courtyard of accused Simon Munda (since dead). 123. Further, informant P.W.-8 Ganesh Chik Barakeh is an injured witness, in his cross-examination had deposed that the place of occurrence of the land bears Khat no. 25 and Plot no. 1451 and the area of the land is 51 Decimal. Informant further stated that his house is at a distance of about 50-60 feet from the house of the accused persons and nearby the house of accused persons, there is house of Ramcharan Baraik, Ful Singh Baraik, Dullar Baraik, Marsal Dang, Sugar Jojo etc. 124. Likewise, other eye witness of the incident Hirawati Devi (P.W.-2) had also in her cross-examination had deposed that incident of assault occurred one-two steps away to the east of courtyarded in the bari land, which is disputed plot. 125. Hence, from the evidence of eye witness P.W.-2, seizure list witness P.W-4 and informant P.W-8, who is injured witness, place of occurrence is proved. 126. Therefore, it is considered view of this Court that non-examination of investigating officer has no vital impact upon the veracity of the prosecution and further defence has completely failed to establish that any prejudice has been caused to the appellants due to the non-examination of investigating officer, therefore contention for the learned 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 48 counsel for appellants is totally misplaced that place of occurrence has not been proved. 127. Accordingly, issue no.(iii) has been answered. 128. This Court, having discussed the factual aspect and legal position and considering the finding recorded by the learned trial Court, is of the view that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges under sections 302/34 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all shadow of doubts against the present appellants namely Prem Dan Jojo and Aniket Jojo @ Anikep Jojo, therefore, order impugned requires no interference by this Court so far the aforesaid appellants are concerned. 129. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 30.04.1998 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega, in Session Trial No.130 of 1993, convicting the appellants under section 302/34 and 307 of IPC, is hereby sustained and upheld. 130. So, far as sentence of the present appellants for their conviction under section 302/34 IPC is concerned, this court finds that appellants were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years by the learned trial court and this inadequacy in passing the sentence was taken note of by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court wherein Co-ordinate Bench in its order dated 16.06.1998, had noted that the sentence awarded under section 302/34 IPC is not permissible in law. 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 49 131. It requires to refer herein that the sentence for murder as provided under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 is death or imprisonment for life. For ready reference Section 302 of the IPC is being reproduced herein: “302. Punishment for murder.— Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.” 132. Thus, from perusal of the aforesaid it is evident that the minimum punishment for conviction under section 302 IPC is life imprisonment. 133. Here, it is pertinent to note the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court delivered in case of Govind Ramji Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, (1990) 4 SCC 718, on the issue of enhancement of sentence, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph-15 of the judgment had laid down that High Court both in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC and its appellate jurisdiction under Section 377 read with Section 386(c) of CrPC in matters of enhancement of sentence should give the accused a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement as contemplated under the first proviso to Section 386 as well under sub-section (3) of Section 377 of the Code.Paragraph-15 of this judgment is quoted herein below- “15. From the above discussion, it is clear that the High Court both in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC and its appellate jurisdiction under Section 377 read with Section 386(c) of 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 50 CrPC in matters of enhancement of sentence should give the accused a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement as contemplated under the first proviso to Section 386 as well under sub-section (3) of Section 377 of the Code. As pointed out in Surjit Singh case [1984 Supp SCC 518 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 90] , the rules of natural justice as also the prescribed procedure require issuing of notice to the appellant and affording an opportunity to be heard on the proposed action for enhancement of sentence.” 134. Accordingly in the instant case, notice was issued to the appellants in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.132 of 1998 (R) and in Criminal Revision No.162 of 1998 (R) which is apparent from order dated 04.05.2026, passed by Co- ordinate Bench of this Court and the same has already been discussed in preceding paragraph. 135. Further, in Govind Ramji Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra (supra), Hon’ble Apex Court laid down that High Court to enhance the sentence in appropriate cases where the sentence awarded by the subordinate courts is grossly inadequate or unconscionably lenient or ‘flea-bite’ or is not commensurate with the gravity of the offence. The Hon’ble Apex Court further laid down that High Court enjoys the power of enhancing the sentence either in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 or in its appellate jurisdiction under Section 377 read with Section 386(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) subject to the provisos (1) and (2) to Section 386 of the Code. It may be stated in this 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 51 connection that it is permissible for the High Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 IPC to exercise the power of a court of appeal under Section 386(c) for enhancement of sentence. Paragraph-6 of this judgment is quoted herein below- “6. ‘Let punishment fit the crime’ is one of the main objects of the sentencing policy. To achieve this object, the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to enhance the sentence in appropriate cases where the sentence awarded by the subordinate courts is grossly inadequate or unconscionably lenient or ‘flea-bite’ or is not commensurate with the gravity of the offence. The High Court enjoys the power of enhancing the sentence either in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 or in its appellate jurisdiction under Section 377 read with Section 386(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) subject to the provisos (1) and (2) to Section 386 of the Code. It may be stated in this connection that it is permissible for the High Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 IPC to exercise the power of a court of appeal under Section 386(c) for enhancement of sentence.” 136. Hence, in the backdrop of this legal position and particularly taking into consideration that sentence has been passed by the learned trial Court against the appellant is not as per the punishment stipulated in Section 302 of the IPC wherein minimum punishment has been provided is life imprisonment, this Court is of the considered view that order of sentence dated 30.04.1998 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega, in Session Trial No.130 of 1993 wherein both the appellants were sentenced to 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 52 undergo R.I. for ten years each for their conviction under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code requires interference. 137. Accordingly, the order of sentence dated 30.04.1998 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega, in Session Trial No.130 of 1993 wherein both the appellants were sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years for the offence under Section 302/34 is hereby quashed and set aside. 138. Since this Court has already observed in the preceding paragraph that the appellants have been rightly convicted by the learned trial Court under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, they are accordingly sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the said conviction. 139. Consequent upon dismissal of the appeal, appellants namely Prem Dan Jojo and Aniket Jojo @ Anikep Jojo, since are enjoying the suspension of sentence after order passed by this Court directing to release him during pendency of the appeal, the bail bond of both the appellants are hereby cancelled and appellants are directed to surrender before the learned Trial Court for serving out the sentence passed against him. 140. Needless to say, that if the appellants will not surrender, the learned Trial Court will take endeavors for 2026:JHHC:16886-DB 53 securing custody of the appellants to serve out the sentence as inflicted by the learned Trial Court. 141. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed with aforesaid modification in sentence. 142. The instant criminal revision is also disposed of. 143. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. 144. Before parting with this Judgment, we must record that we have been given able assistance by Ms. Sugandha Khalkho, learned amicus curiae appointed by this Court for the appellants. 145. We, accordingly, direct the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, Ranchi, to make the payment of the prescribed remuneration to the learned amicus curiae. 146. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, Ranchi, for the needful. 147. Let lower Court records be transmitted to the Court concerned, forthwith. I agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, the 10th June, 2026. Birendra /A.F.R. Uploaded on 12.06.2026