2026:JHHC:18475 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 243 of 2009 -------- Bijay Singh Jonko, Son of Late Badhan Singh Jonko, resident of Vill.- Otar, P.O.-Otar, P.S.-Karaikela, Dist. West Singhbhum ... ... Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Respondent -------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Appellant :Mrs. Pushpanjali Kumari, Advocate For the State :Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P. -------- J UDGMENT Dated: 24th June, 2026 By Court: - Heard Mrs. Pushpanjali Kumari, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl.P.P. for the State. 2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 06.05.2008 and order of sentence dated 09.05.2008 passed in S.T. No. 155 of 2006/S.T.R. No. 62 of 2006 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-V, Chaibasa whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 326 and 307 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC and R.I. for two years for the offence under Section 326 of the I.P.C. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Factual Matrix 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that in the intervening night dated 13/14.04.2006, when the informant was sleeping with his inmates in the house, at about 3:00 AM, in the morning, Vijay Singh Jonko (the present appellant) armed with Tangi and Bankiya (Dauli) approached and started assaulting the 2026:JHHC:18475 2 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 243 of 2009 informant. On raising alarm, the nephew of the informant came to rescue, who was also assaulted with Dauli, causing injuries over the neck. It is also alleged that in order to kill the informant, the accused assaulted with Dauli, which caused grievous injuries over the head and fled away, after intervention of villagers and localities. 4. On the basis of fardbeyan, Bandgaon P.S. Case No. 21 of 2006 was registered for the offence under Sections 341, 324, 326 & 307 of the IPC. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the accused person and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions, where S.T. No.155 of 2006/S.T.R. No. 62 of 2006 was registered. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused claimed to be innocent. 5. It appears that altogether 10 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution: - P.W.-1 Chokro Gagrai (Nephew of Informant-cum-injured witness) P.W.-2 Nandlal Jonko P.W.-3 Prity Gagrai (Wife of Informant) P.W.-4 Neel Kamal Mahto P.W.-5 Ram Rai Gagrai P.W.-6 Dumbi Jonko P.W.-7 Mangal Gagrai P.W.-8 Birsa Gagrai P.W.-9 Krishan Balabh Prasad (Investigating Officer) P.W.-10 Dr. Saiba Soren 2026:JHHC:18475 3 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 243 of 2009 6. Apart from oral evidence, several documentary evidences have also been adduced. 7. On the other hand, the defence has also examined two witnesses:- D.W.-1 Surai Murmu D.W.-2 Raimuni Jonko (wife of the accused) 8. Apart from oral evidence, no documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of defence. Submissions on behalf of the appellant:- 9. Learned counsel for the appellant without touching the merits of this judgment, has confined herself towards the quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has remained in custody for about 3 years and 1 month out of 7 years maximum imprisonment as awarded by the learned trial Court for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. Learned counsel further submits that the occurrence is of the year 2006 and now, about two decades have passed from the date of occurrence. It is also submitted that the appellant has sufficiently been punished for his guilt and again sending the appellant for sustaining the rest period of imprisonment, would yield no useful purpose. Hence, the maximum sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the imprisonment already undergone by him to meet the ends of justice in this case. 2026:JHHC:18475 4 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 243 of 2009 Submissions on behalf of the State 10. Per contra, Learned Spl.P.P. has defended the judgment of learned trial Court on merits. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, she has submitted that this case is stale one of the year 2006 and the appellant has already sustained three years and one month custody out of seven years, hence appropriate order may be passed for the ends of justice. Analysis, reasons and decision 11. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence in the light of the contentions raised on behalf of both side. 12. It appears that the learned trial court has held the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 326 and 307 of the I.P.C. after perusal of evidence of injured witnesses i.e. informant Birsa Gagrai, Chokro Gagrai (nephew of the informant) and Balima Kui along with their injury reports proved by the P.W.-10, Dr. Saiba Soren who has opined the injury No.2 of the informant as grievous and rest are simple and injury of nephew of the informant and Balima Kui as simple in nature caused by hard cutting substance like Dauli and Tangi. It appears that injured as well as other ocular witnesses have categorically proved the role of appellant in assaulting the injured which finds corroboration from evidence of Dr. Saiba Soren (P.W.-10) and since the learned counsel for the appellant has also confined his argument towards the quantum of sentence, therefore, the conviction of the appellant passed by 2026:JHHC:18475 5 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 243 of 2009 the learned trial Court is upheld. 13. So far as the sentence of the appellant is concerned, it appears that the occurrence is of the year 2006 and since then, two decades have elapsed and the appellant has suffered long agony of the trial and the appellant has remained in custody for about three years and one month, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellant again in jail for sustaining the rest of the imprisonment. Hence, it appears expedient, for the ends of justice to modify/alter the sentence of the appellant. 14. Accordingly, the sentence of the appellant is modified to the extent of period already undergone by the appellant. 15. In result, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence as stated above. 16. Appellant is on bail, hence, he is discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds. The sureties are also discharged. 17. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly. 18. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) 24.06.2026 Basant/ Uploaded on 25/06/2026