2026:JHHC:18855 (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 657 of 2009) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 657 of 2009 -------- [Against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26.06.2009, passed in Sessions Case No. 105 of 2008 by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara.] ------- 1. Govind Rai, S/o. Ganesh Rai; 2. Balram Rai, S/o. Late Chalku Rai; 3. Arjun Rai, S/o. Gouri Shankar Rai; 4. Jhagru Rai, S/o. Late Baldeo Rai; 5. Gouri Shankar Rai, S/o. Late Puran Rai, All are R/o. Vill.- Suggi Pahari, P.S.- Jamtara, Dist.- Jamtara. ... ... Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Respondent -------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Appellants : Mr. Nityanand Pd. Choudhary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Azeemuddin, A.P.P. -------- J U D G M E N T Dated: 29th June, 2026 By Court:- 1. Heard Mr. Nityanand Pd. Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Azeemuddin, learned A.P.P. 2. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26.06.2009 passed in Sessions Case No. 105 of 2008 by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted under Sections 323 & 448 of the I.P.C. and in view of first offence of the appellants, the learned Trial Court instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment, has released the appellants on furnishing bond to maintain peace and good behavior up to one year. 2026:JHHC:18855 2 (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 657 of 2009) Factual Matrix:- 3. The prosecution case arises out on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant Mangal Rai recorded on 19.12.2007 at 11:30 A.M., alleging inter alia that he is the son-in-law of Parvati Devi and living in the house of Parvati Devi with his wife as the said Parvati Devi has no male issue. Balram Rai, who is the nephew of his father-in-law refused to give share in the join property and ill-treated and abused his wife and mother-in-law. It is further alleged that on 18.12.2007, accused Arjun Rai, brother of Balram Rai cut the bamboo planted by his father-in-law and when his mother-in-law went to protest, he abused her. It is further alleged that on 19.12.2007 at about 7:00 a.m., accused Govind Rai came to his home and stated that they would not give any share in the property and when his mother-in-law protested, Balram Rai and Jhagru Rai entered into her house and was assaulted by brick and stone and used filthy language due to which his mother-in-law sustained several injuries. However, she saved her life fleeing away from there. 4. On the basis of above informant, F.I.R. being Jamtara P.S. Case No. 283 of 2007 was registered for the offence under Section 448/341/323/307/504/34 of the I.P.C. 5. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions, where Sessions Case No. 105 of 2008 was registered. The learned Trial Court after evaluating the evidence of the witnesses examined during the trial, held the appellants guilty for the offence under Sections 323 & 448 of the I.P.C. and instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment released 2026:JHHC:18855 3 (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 657 of 2009) them on probation of good conduct on entering into a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety maintaining peace and good behavior up to one year. Submissions on behalf of the appellants:- 6. The learned counsel for the appellants assailing the impugned judgment on merits has submitted that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case only on account of some dispute in the family. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court without appreciating the evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 323 & 448 of the I.P.C. and instead of awarding substantive sentence to the appellants, they were released on furnishing bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety maintaining peace and good behavior up to one year. The bond was executed before the learned Trial Court and the terms of bond has already been expired but the appellants have still stigma of conviction. Hence, the conviction of the appellants is fit to be set aside and this appeal may be allowed. Submissions on behalf of the State:- 7. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and has submitted that the learned Trial Court has very wisely and aptly appreciated the evidence available on record. The witnesses examined by the prosecution have consistently proved the occurrence of assault to the informant party which also finds corroboration from the injury report of the injured persons. The appellants have disturbed the land of the informant party and assault him. Therefore, there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment calling for any interference by way of this appeal which is 2026:JHHC:18855 4 (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 657 of 2009) devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed. Analysis, discussions and reasons: - 8. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment in the light of contentions raised on behalf of the both side. 9. It appears that altogether eight witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and apart from oral evidence, following documentary evidences have also been adduced by the prosecution:- I. Exhibit-1 Signature of Mangal Rai on fardbeyan II. Exhibit -2 Endorsement on fardbeyan. III. Exhibit-2/1 & 2/2- Endorsement and written report by Sri Madan Mohan Singh, I.O. IV. Exhibit-3 to 3/3- Memo of arrest of the accused persons. V. Exhibit-4 –Forwarding letter written by Sri M.M. Singh. VI. Exhibit-5 –Injury report of Parbati Devi 10. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been examined on behalf of defence. 11. PW-8 Dr. A. Murmu has stated that on 19.12.2007, he had examined injured Parbati Devi and found the following on her person vide P.O.P.D. No. 2852/19.12.2007:- I. Complain of pain on back of head with diffuse swelling. II. Complain of pain on lumber region. III. Complain of pain all over body. Nature of Injury- All the injuries are simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. The Injury No. I may be casued by brick bat. In his cross-examination, the doctor has opined that none of the 2026:JHHC:18855 5 (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 657 of 2009) injury is fatal for life and such injury may be caused due to accidental fall. 12. From the testimony of witnesses, it appears that the injured Parvati Devi has consistently proved her plea that she was assaulted by the appellants by bricks and stone, which also find corroboration from the injury report corroborated by PW-8. It further appears that all the prosecution witnesses have stated that the accused persons entered into the house of the informant and assaulted Parvati Devi. Therefore, the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants for the offences under Section 323 & 448 of the I.P.C. 13. I further find that the learned Trial Court after considering the over all aspects of the case and the nature of offence committed by the appellants as well as in view of the fact that it was first offence of the appellants has taken a lenient view and released the appellants on furnishing bond to maintain peace and good behavior up to one year. Therefore, I don’t find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order calling for any interference in this appeal. 14. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. 15. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly. 16. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record be sent back immediately to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Dated: 29th June, 2026 Rahul-NAFR Uploaded on 02/07/2026