Sadhu Mandal Alias Fucha Mandal v. The State Of Jharkhand
Cr.Rev./196/2016 · 2026-08-24
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 24175 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 24175 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:JHHC:25564 p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 196 of 2016 --------- Sadhu Mandal @ Fucha Mandal, son of Ajit Mandal, represented by Ajit Mandal, son of Nisapati Mandal Fusha and natural guardian of Sadhu Mandal @ Fucha Mandal, resident of Bagsuma, P.O.-Bagsuma, P.S. Govindpur, District-Dhanbad
… … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand
…. Opp. Party ---------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Pertyush, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Lily Sahay, A.P.P. ----------- Dated: 24th August, 2026
1. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P.
2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14.08.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Dhanbad in Cr. Appeal No.210 of 2012, whereby and whereunder the appellate court has upheld and confirmed the order dated 06.06.2012 passed by learned Principal Magistrate and Member of Juvenile Justice Board, Dhanbad in Govindpur P.S. Case No.245 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2237 of 2008 (Inquiry No.84 of 2012), whereby and whereunder learned trial court has convicted the petitioner for the offences under sections 302/201 of IPC and directed to undergo Special Home for a
2026:JHHC:25564 p. 2 period of 3 years under 15(1)(g) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Factual Matrix:-
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this criminal revision is that on 01.08.2008 at about 9:00 am, the petitioner along with one Vijay Mandal took the minor son of the informant, namely, Sachin Kumar Mandal aged about 9 years from the way of the school house and subsequently, the dead body of the minor son of the informant was found in nearby forest. From the place of occurrence, school bag and Chappal of the deceased were recovered. It is further alleged that the local villagers have seen the petitioner coming from the forest wearing blood stain dress and they tried to apprehend the petitioner but he escaped. However, other accused, Vijay Mandal was apprehended and disclosed that two day ago, the petitioner purchased a Chhura and told that he will kill Sachin Mandal. 4. On the basis of aforesaid information, Govindpur P.S. Case No.245 of 2008 was instituted for the offences under sections 302/201/34 of IPC. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner.
The petitioner took the plea of juvenile and after inquiry on the assessment of age, he was declared juvenile and the case was transferred to the Juvenile Justice Board for inquiry and disposal where, substance of acquisition against the petitioner along other juvenile Vijay Kumar Mandal for the offence punishable under sections
2026:JHHC:25564 p. 3 302/201/34 of IPC was explained and read over in Hindi for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to face inquiry before Juvenile Justice Board, Dhanbad. 5. Prosecution has examined altogether 7 witnesses in this case and several documentary evidences have also been adduced. 6. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. The case of defence is denial from occurrence and false implication. Submission on behalf of petitioner:-
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner without touching the merits of the
judgment has confined himself towards the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner by the learned trial court and upheld by learned appellate court. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has remained in custody for two years. Considering the nature of offence committed by the petitioner, he has sufficiently been punished for his guilt. The occurrence is of the year 2008 and about two decades has to be elapsed. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent except it and he come in the main stream of his life as per probation report received from the concerned Probation Office, Dhanbad, which reveals that the petitioner is enjoying his peaceful life with his wife, children and parents as a law abiding citizen and now he is working in a hotel at Ratanpura, Govindpur as a cook for his livelihood. Therefore, sending the petitioner again to Special Home or Special Place of Safety
2026:JHHC:25564 p. 4 for remaining period of sentence, would not meet the ends of justice and disproportionate to the offence committed by him. Hence, sentence of the petitioner may be reduced to the imprisonment already undergone by him Submission on behalf of State:-
8. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has defended the judgement on merits but so far as the quantum of sentence is concerned in the factual aspect of the case, he has submitted that an appropriate order may be passed.
Analysis, Reasons and Decision:-
9. I have considered the submission of the respective parties and also perused the impugned judgment. It appears that P.W.3-Dilip Kumar Hembram who happens to be an eye-witness to the occurrence has stated that while he went towards the pond for nature call and taking bathe, he heard the cry of a child, then he rushed towards the sound of cry and saw the petitioner slitting the neck of a child. Thereafter, when the petitioner saw him, he buried the knife in the sand beside the body of the child and fled away. He chased the accused but he succeeded to flee away. Subsequently, the dead body of the minor son of the informant was recovered from the said place of occurrence and the injuries sustained on the person of the deceased minor boy has also been corroborated by the doctor (P.W.7), who has conducted post-mortem found following injures i.e. (i) incised wound three in numbers over lapping each other on front of the neck tangentially from below upward
2026:JHHC:25564 p. 5 with skin tags on both sides of the neck. Having size 3” x ¼” x trachea deep, ¾” x ¼” x occipital deep and 5” x ½” x bone deep with 3rd cervical vertebra having clear cut on front of the body, (ii) bruise ¼” x ¼” over both side of nose, (iii) abrasion 1” x 1/8” over lower part inner side of right thigh. The doctor (P.W.7) has opined the cause of death due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of sharp cutting weapon and has proved the post-mortem report as Ext.3. 10. Considering the nature of offence and direct involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence, which was corroborated by the post- mortem report as well as the eye-witness (P.W.3), I find that there is no error in the judgment and order of conviction of the petitioner. Hence, the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under sections 302/201 of IPC is upheld. 11.
So far as the sentence of the petitioner is concerned, it appears that the occurrence is of the year 2008 when the petitioner was a minor and since then about two decades have expired and the petitioner has come in the main stream of his life as per probation report received from the concerned Probation Office, Dhanbad, which reveals that the petitioner is enjoying his peaceful life with his wife, children and parents as a law abiding citizen and he is now working in a hotel at Ratanpura, Govindpur as a cook for his livelihood. He has remained in custody for 2 years out of 3 years of the total period of imprisonment as awarded to the petitioner, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending
2026:JHHC:25564 p. 6 the petitioner again in Special Home for sustaining the rest of the sentence. Hence, it appears expedient, in the ends of justice to modify/alter the sentence of the petitioner. 12. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioner is modified to the extent of period already undergone by him. 13. Consequently, this criminal revision is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence as stated above. 14. Petitioner is on bail, hence, he is discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds. The sureties are also discharged. 15. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly. 16. Let a copy of this order along with Trial Court Records be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi 24/08/2026 Pappu/-N.A.F.R./- Uploaded On 25 /08/2026