2026:JHHC:24534 IN THE HIGH COURT OFJHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 559 of 2005 --------- [Against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 03.05.2005 passed by the learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Jamtara in Sessions Case No. 39 of 1998 / 17 of 2004.] --------- 1. Kalu Rai, S/o. Mathur Rai 2. Lalu Bhandari, S/o. Ratan Bhandari 3. Khagan Mondal, son of late Dukhan Mondal 4. Jhulu Mondal, son of late Huku Mondal 5. Bagu Rajwar, son of Gobardhan Rajwar 6. Sunil Mondal, son of late Bhubu Mondal 7. Sudhir Mondal, son of late Bhbu Mondal 8. Simant Mondal, son of Jaydev Mondal Sl. No. 1-7 are residents of Village- Dealbari and Sl. No. 8 is resident of village Nayadih, all are of P.S.- Narayanpur, Dist.- Jamtara. ……Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand …. Respondent --------- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA --------- For the Appellants : Mr. Mahesh Kr. Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Gaurav Priyadarshi, Advocate : Ms. Priyadarshini Shiwangi, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P. ----------- JUDGMENT CAV On: 03rd July, 2026 Pronounced On: 14/08/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned A.P.P. 2. Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 03.05.2005 passed by the learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Jamtara in Sessions Case No. 39 of 1998 / 17 of 2004, whereby and whereunder, the appellants and co-accused 2026:JHHC:24534 2 | P a g e have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 & 307/149 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years alongwith the fine of Rs. 1000 each for the offence under Section 307/149 of the I.P.C.; R.I. for 1 year each under section 148 I.P.C. with default stipulation and no separate sentence has been awarded for the offence under Section 147 I.P.C. Factual Matrix:- 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that in the night of 07.07.1996, when the wife of the informant with other female member went for nature's call, she heard some sound and on flashing torch light, she saw Gobind das and Gangadhar Saw were pasting some posture on wall and thereafter she raised halla and came towards the village and disclosed everything to the brother of the informant. In the morning on 08.07.1996, they saw there was threatening notes written on the posture against the informant party. It is alleged that on 08.07.1996 at about 4 P.M., when the informant party were holding a meeting, 20-25 persons alongwith 3-4 female members variously armed with weapons came there and started assaulting them. These members were of Lal Khandi extremist group. It is further alleged that Kalu Rai inflicted lathi and sword blow to his brother Paresh Das due to which he sustained injuries. After assaulting brother of the informant, the assailants fled away. 4. On the basis of above information of the informant, F.I.R. being Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 42 of 1996 dated 08.07.1996 was registered 2026:JHHC:24534 3 | P a g e for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 342, 448, 324, 326 & 307 of the I.P.C. and 3/4 of the E.S. Act. 5. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against accused persons and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions, where Sessions Case No. 39 of 1998 / 17 of 2004 was registered. 6. The appellants have denied the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried. 7. In the course of trial, altogether 15 witnesses were examined by the prosecution apart from following documentary evidence:- I. Exhibit-1: Injury report of injured Paresh Das II. Exhibit-2: Signature of Naresh Das on fardbeyan III. Exhibit-2/1: Signature of Naresh Das on seizure list IV. Exhibit- 2/2: Signature of Santosh Das on seizure list V. Exhibit-3 : Fardbeyan VI. Exhibit-4 : Signature of Rameshwar Thakur on formal F.I.R. VII. Exhibit-X: Poster (Material Exhibit) 8. On the other hand, the defence has also produced following documentary evidence:- i. Exhibit- A to A/g : certified copy of order sheet dated 05.02.1997 passed in revenue eviction case no. 42/1996-1997, 39/96-97, 44/96-97, 33/96-97, 45/96-97, 46/96-97, 47/96-97 & 43/96-97 to show that there was or is enmity between the informant and the accused persons. 2026:JHHC:24534 4 | P a g e ii. Exhibit-B to B/g : certified copy of report of circle officers in the aforesaid revenue eviction case. iii. Exhibit-C : certified copy of order sheet in G.R. Case No. 622/1995. iv. Exhibit-D: certified copy of formal F.I.R. alongwith fardbeyan in G.R. Case No. 622/1995, in which the informant was Muniram Paswan and the accused are four in number, in which one was Paresh Das. 9. The learned Trial Court after scrutinizing the evidence oral as well as documentary led by the respective parties, arrived at definite conclusion about the guilt of the appellants for the aforesaid offences and sentenced them accordingly as stated above, which has been assailed in this appeal. Submission on behalf of appellants:- 10. Assailing the impugned judgment, the learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that admittedly the F.I.R. was lodged against several members of extremists group namely Lalkhandi, who attacked on the brother of the informant and assaulted him by lathi and sharp cutting weapon. It is also proved by the appellants through the documentary evidence adduced during trial (Ext.- A to A/g and Ext.-B to B/g, Ext.-C & Ext.-D) that previous litigation with regard to both civil and criminal proceedings were going on with the informant party. The appellants happen to be co-villagers of the informant and does not belong to any extremist group including Lalkhandi. It is further submitted that investigating officer of this case has not been examined 2026:JHHC:24534 5 | P a g e during trial. It is also submitted that the prosecution has not brought any reliable materials on record to prove the existence of extremist group namely Lalkhandi and the appellant are members of that extremist group. The genesis and manner as depicted in the F.I.R. itself discloses that about around twenty to twenty-five persons suddenly attacked on the informant's brother causing him several simple and grievous injuries on different parts of the body. Except the brother of the informant, no other persons were attacked, for which no reason has been disclosed by the prosecution. The witnesses examined by the prosecution have given a colourable version assault by the appellants, which cannot be relied upon. It is further submitted that in the mob violence most of the co- accused persons were jointly tried by the learned Trial Court and have been acquitted on the basis of same evidence. Therefore, conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained without recording any special reasons establishing their conclusive involvement in the alleged occurrence. The learned Trial Court has committed serious error of law in overlooking the material evidence of witnesses in the light of their cross-examination wherein no specific role has been attributed on the part of the appellants. It is further submitted that although the injured has sustained as many as 13 injuries, out of which two injuries are grievous in nature and rest of the injuries are simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. The grievous injuries are also not on the vital part of the part of the body in order to attract the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. The specific allegation is made against the appellant no. 1 Kalu Rai, that he assaulted the informant's brother by tangi and lathi but it is quite 2026:JHHC:24534 6 | P a g e impossible that at the same time a person will blow two different arms and attack simultaneously on the same persons and there is not such version of any witness on any point of time, he threw the lathi and thereafter assaulted by tangi, or either he used the handle nodded part of the tangi while assaulting the informant. Even if, such version is assumed to be true, no offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is attracted because if the assailant having intention to kill any person, he will use the sharp edge of weapon and one or two blow is sufficient to cause death. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is fit to be set aside and this appeal may be allowed. Submission on behalf of State:- 11. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellants and defending the impugned judgment has submitted that the learned Trial Court has very wisely and aptly considered the overall aspects of the case and the testimony of ocular witnesses, who have categorically proved the charges levelled against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. The appellants forming an unlawful assembly have acted in concerted manner in execution of their common object to give murderous assault to informant's brother due to which injured sustained grievous as well as simple injuries. It is further submitted that the evidence of the informant and injured have been full corroborated by the medical evidence regarding injuries sustained by the injured. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment, which suffers from 2026:JHHC:24534 7 | P a g e no illegality or infirmity. This appeal is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed. Analysis, Reasons and Decision:- 12. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment and order in the light of the contentions raised on behalf of both side. 13. The only point for consideration in this appeal is, as to whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence suffers from any serious error or law calling for any interference or not? 14. Before adjudicating the above point, it is pertinent to apprise with the testimony of the witnesses examined during trial specially informant, injured and the doctor who examined the injured. PW-6 Paresh Chand Das is the injured and according to his evidence, this witness has stated that on the date of alleged occurrence, the meeting was organized by the villagers at about 4- 5 P.M. as a poster was found to be pasted over his house. While the meeting was going on, approximately 25-30 persons variously armed were seen coming from the eastern side of the village. On seeing them, the persons who were present in the meeting started fleeing away but this witness was apprehended by one Lalu Bhandari and Kalu Rai inflicted sword blow. He has further stated that Kalu Rai inflicted axe blow upon his head and Jhulu Mondal inflicted tangi blow. He fell down after sustaining serious injuries and thereafter Sumant Mondal started pressing his chest by sitting over him. The other persons also inflicted lathi blow. He has further stated that he remained in the hospital for seven days. 2026:JHHC:24534 8 | P a g e In his cross examination, this witness has stated that he has disclosed the factum of assault by the accused persons before the police. He has denied the case of eviction lodged by the accused persons. PW-14 Naresh Das is the informant of this case. He has stated that occurrence took place at about 4:00 P.M. while they were holding a meeting. Approximately 24 persons were seen coming from the southern portion, which created abnormal situation, people started fleeing away. He hide himself behind a wall. He has seen assault upon his brother by the assailants. He has further stated that Kalu Rai was carrying sword in his hand and others had tangi and lathi. On hearing alarm of persons, villagers of adjacent places arrived there, thereafter the assailants fled away. In his cross-examination, he admits that accused persons are of his village but denies any animosity with them. PW-12 Dr. Devaki Nandan Prasad has examined the injured Paresh Das, while he was posted at Narayanpur PHC and found the following injuries:- i. A sharp cut injury 4" x ½" scalp deep over left side of interior part of perital region. ii. A sharp cut injury 3" x ½" x scalp deep over back of injury no.i. iii. A lacerated wound 1 ½" x ½" x half scalp deep over mid region of scalp within skin flap of same size. iv. A sharp cut of injury 3" x ½" x ½" over interior part of shift of left of middle portion. 2026:JHHC:24534 9 | P a g e v. A lacerated wound 1" x 1/3" x 1/3" over interior part of shift of left leg below injury no. iv. vi. A lacerated wound of size 1 ½" x ½" x ½" over left foot in wave of second and third toes with surrounding swelling (X- ray shows crush fracture of fifth meta tarsal). vii. An abrasion of size 2" over interior shift of right leg of middle third part. viii. A huge and vague swelling of whole left foot. ix. An abrasion of 6" over left side of back. x. An abrasion of 6" over right side of back. xi. A vague swelling of size 3 ½" x 2" over upper left forearm. xii. A vague swelling of size 3 ½" x 2" over upper part of right forearm. xiii. A vague swelling of size 3 ½" x 2" over back of right hand shows fracture of bone of 4th meta carpal bone of hand. Opinion- Injury No. vi & xiii are grievous but the rest are simple caused by hard blow and also sharp edge weapons. 15. I have given anxious consideration to the overall aspects of the case and the material evidence available on record. 16. From the aforesaid discussion of ocular testimony of witnesses, it is crystal clear that in order to prove an offence under section 307 of I.P.C. the essential mensrea to constitute the said offence has to be proved. Mensrea can be inferred from the kind of weapon used, nature of injury, force used and part of body etc. The onus lies on the prosecution that the accused has caused an act with intention or knowledge, and under 2026:JHHC:24534 10 | P a g e such circumstances that if by such act was successful, death was caused, he would be guilty of murder. In the instant case, the occurrence took place when the injured could not flee away from meeting. The injured has somehow stated the name of accused Kalu Rai (appellant no. 1) about blow by sword on his head due to which he sustained injury on his head and also on the other parts of body by other assailants by lathi and other weapon. PW-12 Dr. Devaki Nandan Prasad has examined the injured and opined the injury no. vi & xiii to be grievous in nature but rest of the injuries are simple in nature. Injuries sustained by the injured and manner of assault does not indicate that the required intention or knowledge for constituting the offence under section 307/149 of I.P.C as specific allegation is made against the appellant no. 1 Kalu Rai, that he assaulted the informant's brother by tangi and lathi but it is quite impossible that at the same time a person will blow two different arms and attack simultaneously on the same persons and there is not such version of any witness that at any point of time, he threw the lathi and thereafter assaulted by tangi, or either he used the handle nodded part of the tangi while assaulting the informant. Even if, such version is assumed to be true, no offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is attracted because if the assailant having intention to kill any person, he will use the sharp edge of weapon and one or two blow is sufficient to cause death. Therefore, conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 307/149 I.P.C. is not justified under the facts and circumstances of this case. 2026:JHHC:24534 11 | P a g e 17. So far Section 147 & 148 of the I.P.C. is concerned, since the learned Trial Court has acquitted other accused persons from all the charges including Section 147 & 148 I.P.C., hence, the present appellants also deserve benefit of doubt. As such, all the appellants are hereby also acquitted from the conviction for the offence under Sections 147 & 148 I.P.C. 18. In view of the above discussion and reasons, I find merits in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant. It appears that the learned Trial Court has committed serious error of law while considering the testimony of ocular witnesses in its right perspective and guided upon the literal testimony of witnesses without appreciating the same in light of attending circumstances, therefore, arrived at wrong conclusion. 19. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants passed by the learned Trial Court is hereby set aside. 20. This appeal is allowed. 21. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands disposed of. 22. All the appellants are on bail. As such, appellant are discharged from liability of their bail bonds and sureties are also discharged. 23. Let a copy of this judgment alongwith the trial Court records be sent back immediately to the concerned Trial Court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Dated: 14/08/2026 Rahul- NAFR Uploaded On: 18/08/2026