2026:JHHC:19515 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 435 of 2009 [Against the judgment of conviction dated 22.10.2007 and order of sentence dated 29.10.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-Vth, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in S.T. No. 266 of 2005 / S.T.R. No. 79 of 2005] Ramesh Gope, Son of Late Monu Gope, Resident of Village – Gotai, P.O. – Bhoya, P.S. – Chaibasa (M), District – West Singhbhum (Jharkhand). … … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent ….. For the Appellant : Mr. Shantanu Singh, Advocate. Mr. Manjeet Kr. Choudhary, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, A.P.P. ….. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT Dated: 3rd July, 2026 By Court:- Heard Mr. Shantanu Singh, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Manjeet Kumar Choudhary and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The present Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 22.10.2007 and order of sentence dated 29.10.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-Vth, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in S.T. No. 266 of 2005 / S.T.R. No. 79 of 2005, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. 2026:JHHC:19515 2 FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal as per the fardbeyan of informant Marqas Danhanga recorded by S.I. Anil Kumar of Kiriburu P.S. on 15.10.2005 at 20.30 hours in Kiriburu Hospital is that the informant has sold a piglet at 5:00 A.M. in the morning then neighbour Poulin objected him as to why he has sold her piglet. Then the informant replied that the piglet was belonged to him, therefore, he sold the piglet. Thereafter, the matter was diffused. In the evening, at about 7:00 P.M., the informant was going towards Prospecting Chowk to eat betal, then Ramesh Gope (appellant), husband of Marium, shot him on his back by an arrow at Main Road near Pual shop of Prospecting Gara Hating. The informant became injured. Thereafter, Ramesh Gope (appellant) ran away from the spot. The occurrence was witnessed by neighbours. The informant went to Kiriburu Hospital on foot, where he was treated. 8. On the basis of written report of informant, FIR being Kiriburu P.S. Case No. 21 of 2005 was registered against the accused for the offence under Sections 307 and 324 of the I.P.C. and after investigation, the police had submitted charge sheet against the appellant for the offence under Sections 326 and 307 2026:JHHC:19515 3 of the I.P.C. 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 326 and 307 of the I.P.C. were framed against the appellant on 06.02.2006 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 09 witnesses and also adduced following documentary evidence:- Exhibit-1 : Injury Report. Exhibit- 2 : Signature of Marqas Dahanga on the fardbeyan. Exhibit-3 : Fardbeyan. Exhibit-3/1 : Endorsement on the fardbeyan. Exhibit-4 : F.I.R. Exhibit-4/1 : Endorsement on the F.I.R. Exhibit-5 : Authority letter. Exhibit-6 : Endorsement on the sealed cover. Exhibit-7 & 7/1 : Signature of both entries on the admission register entry Sl. No. 377 dated 16.10.2005. Exhibit-8 : X-ray report. 2026:JHHC:19515 4 Exhibit-9, 10 & 11 : Writing and signature on the three prescriptions. Material Exhibits M. Ext. 1 & M. Ext. 2 : Two thin long piece of bamboo wood. M. Ext. 3 : Iron arrow. 10. On the other hand, the defence has examined two witnesses namely, Paikrai Sundi (D.W.-1) and Dub Raj Tiriya (D.W.-2) and no 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 leveled by the injured against the appellant is of single shooting by arrow on his back, but the Doctor, who has done the surgical operation for removing the metal part of the arrow has said that the injury was in chest, which 2026:JHHC:19515 5 totally falsified the entire story of prosecution. The velocity of blow of arrow 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 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 Section 326 of the I.P.C. The appellant has already undergone imprisonment for more than two years, out of R.I. of five years, as sentenced by the learned trial court, 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 2026:JHHC:19515 6 injury was caused by arrow containing iron part and the iron part pierced up to lungs of the injured, which 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. 16. It appears that injured witness, Marquas Dahanga has stated in his evidence that appellant has inflicted arrow blow on his back, but the Doctor P.W.-9 has opined that the injury was grievous in nature as the metallic part of arrow pierced up to the lung of the injured. There is material contradiction in the ocular evidence of injured and the medical report. 17. 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 2026:JHHC:19515 7 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." 18. It has also been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jage Ram & Others Vs. State of Haryana, as reported in (2015) 11 SCC 366, at para-12 that:- "12. For the purpose of conviction under Section 307 IPC, prosecution has to establish (i) the intention to commit murder and (ii) the act done by the accused. The burden is on the prosecution that accused had attempted to commit the murder of the prosecution witness. Whether the accused person intended to commit murder of another person would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. To justify a conviction under Section 307 IPC, it is not essential that fatal injury capable of causing death should have been caused. Although the nature of injury actually caused may be of assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be adduced from other circumstances. The intention of the accused is to be gathered from the circumstances like the nature of the weapon used, words used by the accused at the time of the incident, motive of the accused, parts of the body where the injury was caused and the 2026:JHHC:19515 8 nature of injury and severity of the blows given etc." 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 arrow blow on the body of the 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 the accused appellant was prevented from causing more 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.-9), the offence under Section 326 of the I.P.C. is made out. 20. So far sentence of the appellant is concerned, it is obvious and undisputed that the appellant has already undergone imprisonment for near about 02 years, which appears to be sufficient punishment for his guilt for the offence under Section 326 of the I.P.C. 2026:JHHC:19515 9 The occurrence is of the year 2005 and almost two decades have elapsed. Accordingly, this Court reduce the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone by him instead of imprisonment of five years as awarded by the learned trial court 21. In view of the above, this appeal is dismissed with modification in conviction and sentence to the extent, as stated above. 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: 3rd July, 2026. Sunil/-NAFR Uploaded On 08/07/2026