2026:JHHC:16928 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1712 of 2004 [Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 23.09.2004 passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Jamtara in Sessions Case No.5/96 & 144/02] -------- 1. Bichkuni Mahto @ Ramakant Mahto 2. Basudeo Mahto Both son of Rasho Mahto, resident of Village-Dumaria, P.S. and District-Jamtara ... ... Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent -------- For the Appellants : Mr. Ashutosh Pd. Joshi, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.S. Sahay, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Kaushal Kishor Mishra, Advocate -------- PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT Dated: 10th June, 2026 1. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Pd. Joshi, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned A.P.P. as well as Mr. Kaushal Kishor Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the informant. 2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, both dated 23.09.2004, passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Jamtara in Sessions Case No.5/96 & 144/02 (arising out of Jamtara P.S. Case No.238/93, G.R. No.513/93), whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for the offence under Section 307/34 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years along a with fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation. Factual Matrix 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 29.10.1993 at about 9:30 PM., there was an altercation and scuffle 2026:JHHC:16928 2 between Prahalad Mahato on one side and Amin Mahato, Bichakani Mahato, Basudeo Mahato and Raso Mahato on the other side. The informant along with his brother Sardar Mondal intervened, as they were neighbours of Prahalad Mahato and attempted to negotiate the dispute. While they were negotiating, Amin Mahato and Bichakani Mahato instigated the others to kill them. The fardbeyan further reveals that Amin Mahato assaulted the informant with sword, which the informant attempted to prevent by his hand. Consequently, the thumb of the informant's right hand was injured. It is further alleged that Rasu Mahato inflicted a rod blow on the head of the informant. The father of the informant was also assaulted by Amin Mahato when he attempted to rescue the informant. Sardar Mondal, the brother of the informant, was assaulted by Amin Mahato with a sword. It is further alleged that Basudeo Mahato assaulted Girish Mondal, the nephew of the informant, with an iron rod. The fardbeyan further reveals that the reason for the occurrence was that on 29.10.1993 at about 12:00 P.M., Bichakani Mahato entered into the house of Prahalad Mahato and taking advantage of his absence, irritated his wife. The quarrel started when Prahalad Mahato went to the Amin Mahato for enquiry. It is also alleged that at the time of occurrence, Bichakani Mahato fired a pistol, but fortunately no one was injured. The informant has claimed that all accused persons intended to kill them. 4. On the basis of above fardbeyan, F.I.R. being Jamtara P.S. Case No. 238 of 1993 was registered against the accused persons 2026:JHHC:16928 3 under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325 & 307/34 of the I.P.C. as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act. After investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted under the aforesaid Sections against the four accused persons, out of whom Raso Mahato and Amin Mahato died and proceedings against them were dropped. After taking cognizance, the learned A.C.J.M., Jamtara, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, where it was registered as Sessions Case No.5/96 & 144/02. The charge under Sections 307/34, 341 and 325 of the I.P.C. were framed against the appellants and others and read over and explained to them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution has examined altogether 13 witnesses and also adduced several documentary evidences. 6. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. 7. After conclusion of trial, the learned trial court, after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, has convicted and sentenced the appellants, as stated above, which is assailed in this appeal. Submissions on behalf of the appellants 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that at the time of trial, four accused persons were facing trial, out of them the main assailants, namely Raso Mahato and Amin Mahato died and their case was abated and proceeding against them was dropped. The allegation against the present appellants admittedly is that Bichkuni 2026:JHHC:16928 4 Mahato @ Ramakant Mahto has exhorted the other co-accused persons, who assaulted the informant party, while negotiation for a settlement of their dispute was going on. It is the further alleged against appellant Basudeo Mahto that he assaulted to Girish Mandal nephew of the informant with iron rod. Moreover, the injury sustained by informant caused by Amin Mahato (since deceased) was sword blow, which caused injuries on his hand. Therefore, conviction of the present appellants with aid of Section 34 of the I.P.C. for the offence under Section 307 is not justified under law. It is further submitted that at best the case against the appellants falls under Sections 323 & 325 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. It is further submitted that it was first offence of the appellants and they have not been granted the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act without recording any special reason by the learned Trial Court as mandated under law. Hence, the appeal preferred by the appellants may be allowed. Submissions on behalf of the State 9. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and submitted that there are four injured persons in this case and all the appellants including the deceased have assaulted by iron rod, sword and by means of lathi. The informant has sustained sword injuries and others have also grievous injuries by iron rod and lathi. The injury sustained by the injured persons finds corroboration from their respective injury report proved by P.W. 8, Dr. Arun Kumar 2026:JHHC:16928 5 Chakarvorty. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment calling for any interference by way of this appeal, which is fit to be dismissed. So far non-extension of the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the appellants is concerned, it is fairly admitted that it was first offence of the appellants. Analysis, discussions and reasons 10. I have gone through the impugned judgment of court below in the light of rival contentions of the respective parties. 11. It appears that P.W. 8, Dr. Arun Kumar Chakarvorty has examined Ram Prasad Mondal (informant) and found following injuries on his person:- (i) One verticle incised wound 1" x 1/3rd" muscle deep over tip of right thump cutting the nail. (ii) One oblique incised wound 21/2" x 1/8"x muscle deep over lateral aspect of right palm at the base of right thumb. (iii) Diffused painful swelling 6" x 5" over left shoulder joint with inability to left upper limb. (iv) Diffused swelling 2" x 1" over back of scalp on its left side with complaining of pain. This witness has opined that injury No.iii is grievous, rest are simple and injury No.iii was caused by sharp cutting weapon and rest are by hard and blunt substance. 12. It further appears that P.W. 8, Dr. Arun Kumar Chakarvorty has examined Sardar Mondal and found following injuries on his person:- 2026:JHHC:16928 6 (i) One verticle incised wound 3" x 3/4"x muscle deep over right side of chine. (ii) One verticle incised wound 1" x 1/2"x muscle deep over right side of upper lip at the same level as injury no.1. (iii) Dis-location of right lower canine and right lower lateral incisor with clotting at the roots of teeth. (iv) One oblique lacerated wound 3"x1/2" scalp deep over middle of the scalp. (v) One curbed abrasions 11/2"x1/4" over outer aspect of right elbow joint. As per his evidence, injury No.iii is grievous caused by hard and blunt substance and rest are simple caused by sharp cutting substance. 13. It also appears that P.W.8, Dr. Arun Kumar Chakarvorty has examined Jaleshwar Mondal and found following injuries on his person:- (i) One oblique incised wound 31/2" x 1/3" muscle deep over postero medial aspect of the middle of right forearm. (ii) One oblique incised wound 2" x 1/3"x muscle deep over antero lateral aspect of upper end of right arm. (iii) One abrasion 1"x1/6" over posterior aspect left forearm at its middle with diffused swelling all around. In his opinion nature of all injuries are simple and injury Nos.i and ii caused by sharp cutting substance and rest by hard and blunt substance. 2026:JHHC:16928 7 14. It further found that P.W.8, Dr. Arun Kumar Chakarvorty has examined Girish Mondal and found following injuries on his person:- (i) One horizontal incised wound 1"x1/2"x muscle deep over outer aspect of right elbow joint. As per his opinion this injury was simple caused by sharp cutting substance. 15. It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hari Singh versus Sukhbir Singh & Others reported in (1988) 4 SCC 551, at para 7 that:- “………..…………Under Section 307 I.P.C. what the court has to see is, whether the act irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in that section. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. Without this ingredient being established, there can be no offence of “attempt to murder”. Under Section 307 the intention precedes the act attributed to accused. Therefore, the intention is to be gathered from all circumstances, and not merely from the consequences that ensue. The nature of the weapon used, manner in which it is used, motive for the crime, severity of the blow, the part of the body where the injury is inflicted are some of the factors that may be taken into consideration to determine the intention.” 16. From perusal of aforesaid evidence, it appears that the injury caused by the appellants by means of lathi has been attributed against them and sword blow was given by deceased accused Amin 2026:JHHC:16928 8 Mahato. The facts and circumstances of the case clearly indicates that there was some dispute between the parties and for settlement of the same negotiation was going on meanwhile the incident took place. As such there was no pre-meditation or any pre-plan to cause any particular injury with intention to kill any of the injured persons. The injury sustained by the injured persons also reveals some fracture and other simple injuries caused by the present appellants. Therefore, the required intention and knowledge constituting the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is not attracted against the present appellants rather the offence falls under Sections 323 & 325 of the I.P.C. In this connection a joint compromise petition I.A. No. 15147 of 2025, dated 11.11.2025 has been filed, but from perusal of which it appears that all the injured persons have not put their signature over the said joint compromise petition, hence it cannot be accepted. 17. So far the plea taken by the learned counsel for the appellants that it was first offence of the appellants has not been rebutted by the State and from perusal of impugned judgment also it reveals that it was first offence of the appellants and they have no criminal antecedent or any prior conviction. Hence, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence committed by the appellants, the genesis and manner of occurrence, the appellants deserve to be extended the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 18. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits with 2026:JHHC:16928 9 modification in conviction and sentence to the extent mentioned above. Instead of undergoing substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants by the learned Trial Court, the appellants are hereby directed to be released on furnishing bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 within two months from the date of this order for maintaining peace and be of good behavior for one year from the date of furnishing the bond. 19. 19. If the bond is not furnished within above stipulated time, the learned Trial Court shall issue notice upon the appellants to secure their attendance for furnishing the bond. 20. In case of violation of terms and conditions of the bond, the appellants shall be called upon to receive the sentence already awarded to them. 21. Accordingly, I.A. No.15147 of 2025 is disposed of. 22. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial Court Record be sent back to the concerned court immediately for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) 10.06.2026 Arpit Uploaded on 17/06/2026