2026:JHHC:19134 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 680 of 2009 [Against the Judgment of conviction dated 28.05.2009 and Order of sentence dated 29.05.2009, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Case No. 168 of 2007 / 97 of 2009] Amit Yadav @ Amit Kumar Yadav, S/o Sri Kishori Yadav, Resident of Kokra, P.S. – Balbadda, District – Godda. … … Appellant Versus State of Jharkhand … … Respondent ….. For the Appellant : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate. Ms. Sakshi Charu, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Naveen Kr. Ganjhu, A.P.P. ….. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT Dated: 30th June, 2026 By Court:- Heard Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Sakshi Charu and Mr. Naveen Kumar Ganjhu, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The present Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 28.05.2009 and order of sentence dated 29.05.2009 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Case No. 168 of 2007 / 97 of 2009, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Sections 307, 504/34, 341, 323 and 324 of I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for 2026:JHHC:19134 2 one year for the offence under Section 323 of I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 324 of I.P.C., simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 341 of I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Sections 504/34 of I.P.C. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. FACTUAL MATRIX 7. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the informant Reena Devi has lodged a written report before the Officer-in-charge, Belbadda P.S. stating therein that on 07.07.2007 at 7:30 hours all the accused persons came at the house of the informant and asked about Dilip Yadav with intention to kill him, in the meantime, the said Dilip Yadav came, upon which the accused persons pressed his neck on pulling him on the ground. It is further alleged that informant and her mother came forward to rescue, upon which Kishori Yadav gave gadasa blow on Dilip Yadav, which was protected by the informant by her hand, causing bleeding injury on her palm. The said Dilip Yadav tried to escape from there and this appellant Amit Yadav gave gadasa blow on the mother of the informant, to which she sustained injury on her 2026:JHHC:19134 3 left ear and chick and fell down and became unconscious. It is further alleged that co-accused Sheela Devi snatched ear ring and golden chain of the informant, in the meantime, one accused told that the old lay died, then all the accused persons fled away and anyhow the informant and her mother save their life. The reason behind the occurrence is land dispute and there are many cases pending in the court in between the parties and the informant has claimed that the accused persons have assaulted the said Dilip Yadav and his mother, Karuna Devi with intention to kill them. 8. On the basis of written report of informant, FIR being Meharma (Belbadda) P.S. Case No. 98 of 2007 was registered against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 379, 504 of the I.P.C. and after investigation, the police had submitted charge sheet only against the appellant Amit Yadav showing that the investigation is going on against the rest of the accused persons. After taking cognizance of the offence, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. The charge for the offence under Sections 307, 504/34, 341, 323, 324 of the I.P.C. were framed 2026:JHHC:19134 4 against the appellant on 30.05.2008 and read over and explained to him, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 9. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined altogether 07 witnesses and also adduced following documentary evidence:- Exhibit-1 : Signature of Reena Devi on the fardbeyan. Exhibit- 1/1 : Endorsement of O/C on the fardbeyan. Exhibit-1/2 : Signature of O/C on the fardbeyan. Exhibit-2 : Signature of O/C in formal F.I.R. Exhibit-3 : Injury Report of Dilip Yadav. Exhibit-3/1 : Injury Report of Mosstt. Karuna Devi. Exhibit-3/2 : Injury Report of Reena Devi. Exhibit-4 : Signature of I.O. on the requisition slip for Injury Report of Karuna Devi. Exhibit-4/1 : Signature of I.O. on the requisition slip for Injury Report of Reena Devi. Exhibit-4/2 : Signature of I.O. on the requisition slip for Injury Report of Dilip Kumar Yadav. 2026:JHHC:19134 5 10. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. 11. 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 appellant, as stated above, which is assailed in this appeal. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is absolutely unwarranted under law as the factual scenario clearly depicts that the ingredients of Section 307 I.P.C. is absolutely lacking in this case. The only allegation against the appellant is of inflicting gadasa blow on the mother of the informant namely, Karuna Devi. The medical report of the injured Karuna Devi, proved by the Dr. P.K. Sinha, goes to show that there were five injuries, out of which Injury Nos. 1 to 3 are caused by sharp edged weapon, simple in nature and Injury Nos. 4 & 5 are caused by hard & blunt substance, simple in nature. The velocity of blow alleged to be shown in the medical report of the injured and the cumulative effect of circumstances proved by the prosecution does not attract the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. The learned trial court has also failed to keep in mind the 2026:JHHC:19134 6 required intention and knowledge for constituting the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. The learned trial court has miserably failed to properly appreciate the evidence of witnesses in the light of materials available on record. Therefore, conviction for the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. is liable to be set aside. 13. It is further submitted that at best, the case falls under Sections 504/34, 341, 323 and 324 of the I.P.C. The appellant has already undergone imprisonment of about two years, as such, the appellant has been sufficiently punished for his guilt. Therefore, the imprisonment already undergone by the appellant would meet the ends of justice in this case, instead of undergoing further imprisonment awarded by the learned trial court. 14. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has defended the impugned judgment on merits on the ground that the injury was caused by gadasa on the vital part of the body, although simple, but it is caused with intention to kill the injured. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment, calling for any interference by way of this appeal. 15. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment in the light of the contentions raised on behalf of both side. 2026:JHHC:19134 7 16. It appears that P.W.4 Reena Devi (Informant) has stated in her evidence that present appellant has inflicted gadasa blow on her shoulder, which has been corroborated by P.W.2 Dilip Kumar Yadav and the medical report of Reena Devi also support the aforesaid contention i.e. bruise on back ½” x ½”, but the Doctor, who has conducted medical examination, has opined that the said injury was simple in nature. 17. It further appears that another injured witness, Karuna Devi has stated in her evidence that appellant has inflicted gadasa blow on her cheek and upper part of the left ear, which have been supported by witnesses and also find corroboration from evidence of P.W.-7 Dr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, who has examined the injured Most. Karuna Devi and found following:- (i) Sharp cutting injury of about 3” x ½” over left side of cheek. (ii) Sharp cut injury of about 1” x 5 cm x ½” x 1/3” over upper part of left ear. (iii) Sharp cut wound over left ear of about 1 cm x ½” x ½”. (iv) Bruise of left elbow of about 1” x ½”. (v) Bruise over left side of chest, back palm of 1” x ½”. 2026:JHHC:19134 8 The Doctor has opined that Injury Nos. 1, 2 & 3 are caused by sharp edge, simple in nature, but Injury Nos. 4 & 5 are caused by hard & blunt substance, simple in nature. 18. It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hari Singh Vs. Sukhbir Singh & Others, as reported in (1988) 4 SCC 551, at para-7 that:- "7. …………..Under Section 307 I.P.C. what the court has to see is, whether the act irrespective of is 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 consequence 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." 19. Therefore, in order to attract the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. in this case, the required Intention and knowledge to constitute offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is absolutely lacking. Though, there were gadasa blow on the body of the 2026:JHHC:19134 9 injured but there is no material on record to show that injury caused by the appellant manifests his intention to kill the injured. There is no material on record to show that that he accused appellant was prevented from causing any grievous injury, if he intended to do so. Therefore, the conviction of appellant for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is not sustainable in the eyes of law and beyond the weightage of evidence available on record. Therefore, the conviction of appellant for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is hereby set aside. However, in the factual scenario and corroborated by evidence of doctor (P.W.-7), the offence under Sections 504/34, 341, 323 and 324 of the I.P.C. are made out. 20. So far sentence of the appellant is concerned, it is obvious and undisputed that the appellant has already undergone imprisonment for about 02 years, which appears to be sufficient punishment for his guilt for the offence committed by the appellant. Accordingly, this Court reduce the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone by him instead of imprisonment of seven years as awarded by the learned trial court 21. In view of the above, this appeal is partly allowed with modification in conviction and sentence to the extent, as stated above. 2026:JHHC:19134 10 22. Pending I.A. if any stands disposed of. 23. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to the court concerned immediately for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi. Dated: 30th June, 2026. Sunil/-NAFR Uploaded On 04/07/2026