2026:JHHC:17461 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 461 of 2008 [Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 29.03.2008 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ghatshila in Sessions Trial No. 383 of 2002]. Jadu Tudu, son of Late Ranjit Tudu, resident of Kania Luka, Police Station – Gurabandha, District – East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. … … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent ….. For the Appellant : Mrs. Shail Lakra, Amicus Curaie. For the Respondent : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, A.P.P. ….. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT Dated 12th June, 2026 By Court: Heard Mrs. Shail Lakra, learned Amicus Curaie for the appellant and Mr. Gautam Rakesh, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. 2. Above named appellant has preferred this criminal appeal challenging his judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.03.2008 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ghatshila in Sessions Trial No.383 of 2002, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year along with fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation. 2026:JHHC:17461 FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a narrow compass is that on 10.02.2002 at about 8:00 A.M., one Madan Hansda has informed the villagers that Gora Matu Tudu along with his brother namely, Jadu Tudu, Bhuta Tudu, Jhabu Tudu and other family members were forcibly catching fish in the village tank, in which the villagers reared fish. Thereafter, on getting such information, the informant along with others went to the Village Tank and tried to forbid the accused persons from catching fish, on which the accused persons came out from the Tank and shoot arrow at the villagers, who somehow saved themselves and fled away from the spot, but Madan Hansda sustained injury on his leg by arrow. The accused thereafter fled away from the Village Tank. 4. On the basis of fardbeyan of informant Gumdi Tudu, FIR being Dhalbhumgarh P.S. Case No. 5 of 2002 was registered against the appellant and other accused persons for the offence under Sections 144, 379, 307 of the I.P.C. 5. After completion of investigation, the I.O. of the case has submitted charge sheet against the accused persons under Sections 144, 307 and 34 of the I.P.C. After submission of charge sheet, the cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions, 2026:JHHC:17461 where the charges were framed under Sections 379/519, 307/34 and 144 of the I.P.C., to which the appellant along with other accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against accused, altogether 06 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. P.W.-1 : Durga Charan Tudu. P.W.-2 : Khudi Ram Tuddu. P.W.-3 : Madan Hansda. P.W.-4 : Kasu Hembram. P.W.-5 : Masang Tudu. P.W.-6 : Gumdi Tudu (Informant) 7. Apart from oral evidence of ocular witnesses, following documentary evidences were also adduced. Exhibit-1 : Written report. Exhibit-2 : Signature of the informant Gumdi Tudu on the written report. 8. The case of defence was of innocence, false implication and denial of the alleged occurrence and of previous enmity. No oral evidence has been adduced by the defence. However, the defence has adduced two documentary evidence. 2026:JHHC:17461 Exhibit-A : Certified copy of judgment in S.T. No. 109/2003. Exhibit-B : Certified copy of sale deed no. 102/1982. 9. The learned trial court, after evaluating the evidence available on record, held the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C. and sentenced as stated above. 10. Learned Amicus Curiea appearing for the appellant, without touching the merits of the judgment, has submitted that the appellant has been held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C. and was sentenced for S.I. of one year, out of which, he has remained in custody for more than three months during trial of the case. The occurrence is of the year 2002. The appellant has undergone agony of trial for more than two decades and has been sufficiently punished by undergoing half of the sentence. Therefore, the sentence of the appellant may be reduced to the extent of imprisonment already undergone by him. 11. On the other hand, learned APP has defended the impugned judgment on merits, but has fairly submitted that out of one year of sentence, appellant is in custody for more than three months. 12. It appears that the first information was lodged in the 2026:JHHC:17461 year 2002 against the appellant and others, out of them, only appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C. and now about two decades have been passed from the date of occurrence. It appears that the Investigating Officer as well as doctor have not been examined in this case, which caused prejudiced to the case of the defence. Out of one year sentence, the appellant has remained in custody for more than three months. 13. Therefore, on merits, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction, but so far quantum of sentence is concerned, considering the facts and circumstances of case, nature of offence committed by the appellant, his age, antecedent and character and also in view of the fact that considerable period has elapsed from the date of occurrence and appellant has also remained in custody for more than three months, out of one year sentence, I feel inclined to reduce the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone instead of imprisonment of one year as awarded by the learned trial court. 14. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence as stated above. 15. The appellant is on bail. As such, he is discharged from liability of bail bond and sureties shall also discharged. 2026:JHHC:17461 16. Pending I.A., if any stands disposed of. 17. I take this opportunity to appreciate the assistance rendered by Mrs. Shail Lakra, learned Amicus Curiae and direct the Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee to extend the stipulated fee as per notification of High Court Legal Services Committee to Mrs. Shail Lakra, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 18. Office is directed to ensure that a copy of this order is served upon Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee. 19. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. [ (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated : 12th June, 2026 Sunil /N.A.F.R. Uploaded On : 19/06/2026