2026:JHHC:19408 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 774 of 2005 [Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 31.05.2005, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Deoghar, in Sessions Case No. 103 of 2004] -------- 1. Pande Soren @ Pandu Soren, son of Late Khare Soren 2. Shivdhan Soren, son of Pande Soren 3. Nandlal Soren, son of Pandu Soren All resident of Village-Chhoti Angwali (Murk Tola), P.S.-Palojori, Sub-Division-Madhupur, District-Deoghar ... ... Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent ----- P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Appellants : Mrs. Vani Kumari, Advocate Ms. Jagriti, Advocate For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P. -------- JUDGMENT Dated: 02nd July, 2026 By Court: Heard Mrs. Vani Kumari, learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 31.05.2005, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Deoghar, in Sessions Case No. 103 of 2004, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 323/34 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 for two years extending the benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C. read with Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 2026:JHHC:19408 2 Factual Matrix 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 06.07.2003, the informant Jairam Marandi, submitted a written report at Palazori Police Station stating that his father Kaleshwar Marandi was ploughing his Bari land at about 11:30 A.M., the accused Shivdhan Soren armed with lathi entered the Bari and protested the cultivation of the same. He also started beating his father with lathi. When the informant along with his brother, sister and mother went to rescue him, the accused Nadlal Soren, Rajeev Soren and Pandu Soren came with lathi and tangi. The accused Nand Lal Soren beat the informant with lathi and also struck him with the blunt side of tangi on his head and left hand. The accused persons also beat his mother and father. 4. On the basis of written report, Palazori P.S. Case No. 72 of 2003, dated 06.07.2003 was registered under Sections 448, 341, 323 and 307/34 of the I.P.C. and the charge of investigation of this case was given to S.I. S.L. Pandit, who completed the same and submitted charge sheet against the accused persons, namely Nandlal Soren, Pandu Soren, Shivdhan Soren & Rajeev Soren for the offence under Sections 447, 341, 323 and 307/34 of the I.P.C. 5. On 06.04.2004 the charges against the accused Pandu Soren, Nandlal Soren, Shivdhan Soren were framed under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C. to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The other accused Rajeev Soren was found to be juvenile and was sent to Court of competent jurisdiction for trial on 03.11.2003. 2026:JHHC:19408 3 6. The learned Trial Court after evaluating the evidence of the witnesses examined during the trial, held the appellants guilty for the offence under Section 323/34 of the I.P.C. and instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment released them on probation of good conduct on entering into a bond of Rs.1,000/- with two sureties for maintaining peace and good behavior for two years. Submissions on behalf of the appellants:- 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have been held guilty for the offence under Section 323/34 of the I.P.C. and instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment, the appellants were extended the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and released upon furnishing bond of Rs.1,000/- with two sureties of like amount each for maintaining peace and be of good behavior for two years. Although, the required bond was executed thereafter, this appeal was preferred and the order for executing the bond was also stayed by this Court. It is further submitted that there was land dispute between the parties, since the land in question also belonged to the appellants, therefore, the informant party himself were aggressors. Therefore, the conviction of the appellants is not sustainable under law which is liable to be set aside. Submissions on behalf of the State:- 8. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has submitted that even if it may be assumed that the land belongs to the appellants, they could not take the law into their own hands and inflict unwarranted injuries to the informant party, which is itself illegal act. Therefore, there is no 2026:JHHC:19408 4 illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment calling for any interference in this appeal. Analysis, discussions and reasons:- 9. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side. 10. It appears that altogether eight witnesses have been examined by the prosecution:- P.W.-1-Kaleshwar Marandi P.W.-2-Jogawati Soren P.W.-3-Churki Soren P.W.-4-Jiyaram Marandi (informant) P.W.-5-Shiv Jatan Tudu P.W.-6-Obilal Soren P.W.-7-Lukai Soren P.W.-8-Doctor Ramesh Prasad Singh Apart from oral evidence, the following documentary evidences have been adduced by the prosecution:- (i) Exhibit-1-Signature of Jiyaram Marandi on written report (ii) Exhibit-2-Injury report of Jogawati Soren 11. On the other hand, D.W.-1, Pandu Soren and D.W.-2, Sikandar Das have been examined on behalf of defence. However, the following documentary evidences have been adduced by defence:- 2026:JHHC:19408 5 (i) Exhibit-A-Certified copy of Purcha of Mauza Angwali No.439, J.B. No. 16 (ii) Exhibit-B-Rent receipt P.W.-2, Jogawati Soren has stated that Shivdhan Soren, carrying a lathi in his hand, reached near the Bari and struck her husband twice. Thereafter, the accused Pandu Soren and Rajeev Soren armed with lathi and the accused Nandlal Soren gave a tangi blow on the head of Jairam causing lacerated injury and bleeding. She was also beaten by the accused Shivdhan Soren and the other accused persons, resulting in injuries to her head and hand. P.W.4, Jiyaram Marandi is the informant of this case. He has stated that on 06.07.2003, at about 11:00-11:30 A.M., while he was sitting along with his family members, he heard hulla. He went outside along with his mother and sister and saw that the accused Shivdhan Soren was beating his father, Kaleshwar Marandi in his Bari with lathi. When they forbade the accused Shivdhan Soren, the accused Pandu Soren and Rajeev Soren with lathi and the accused Nandlal Soren with tangi arrived there and started beating them. He has further stated that the accused Nandlal Soren gave tangi blow on his head, causing lacerated injury and bleeding. The accused Pandu Soren inflicted injury on his left hand. They also beat his mother and sister. P.W.-8, Doctor Ramesh Prasad Singh has stated that on 06.07.2003, he had examined Jogawati Soren, wife of Kaleshwar Marandi and found the following injuries on her:- 2026:JHHC:19408 6 I. Lacerated wound on right parietal region size 1½" x 1/2" x skin deep. II. Bruise on back right side 2" x 1" in size. III. Bruise on right scapular region size 2½" x 1" IV. Bruise on right little finger size 1/2" x 1/2" All are caused by H.B.S. Nature-All injures are simple in nature. The injury report bears his signature and is marked as Exhibit-2. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the injured was examined as outdoor patient and he has not mentioned the colour of injury. Bruise can be caused by fall on hard substance. 12. From the testimony of witnesses, it appears that the injured informant has consistently proved his plea that he and his family members were assaulted by the appellants by means of lathi and tangi which also finds corroboration from the injury report proved by P.W.-8. Therefore, the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 323/34 of the I.P.C. 13. I further find that the learned Trial Court after considering the overall aspects of the case and the nature of offence committed by the appellants as well as in view of the fact that it was the first offence of the appellants has taken a lenient view and released the appellants upon furnishing bonds to maintain peace and good behavior for two years. Therefore, I do not find any merits in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed. 2026:JHHC:19408 7 14. Pending I.A(s), if any, stands disposed of. 15. 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.) 02.07.2026 Arpit Uploaded on 06/07/2026