2026:JHHC:9142 Page | 1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 378 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 378 of 2025 [Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, FTC, Ramgarh, in Sessions Trial No.118 of 2018, arising out of Ramgarh P.S Case No.171 of 2017, corresponding to G.R No.601 of 2017] Dhalo Mahto @ Vishal Mahto, aged about 36 years, S/o Late Gahan Mahto, Resident of Mauza Sirka Teliyatand, P.O & P.S Ramgarh, District Ramgarh, Jharkhand …. …. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand …. …. Respondent --- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Appellant : Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, A.P.P. Dated: 01st April, 2026 1. Heard the parties. 2. The present Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, FTC, Ramgarh, in Sessions Trial No.118 of 2018, arising out of Ramgarh P.S Case No.171 of 2017, corresponding to G.R No.601 of 2017, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 323, 341 & 325 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 323 IPC. He has further been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 341 IPC and he has also been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 325 IPC with fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The criminal law has been put into motion by lodging an F.I.R. being Ramgarh P.S Case No.171 of 2017, corresponding to G.R No.601 of 2017, 2026:JHHC:9142 Page | 2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 378 of 2025 against the appellant for the offence under Sections 323, 341, 307 & 354 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The brief facts of the case, as disclosed in the F.I.R., is that on 10.06.2017 at about 08:00 P.M, the informant after completing her work was returning back her home. When she reached near Sirka Tracker Stand, she saw that the appellant was present there. He told her to withdraw the case which was earlier filed against him otherwise she would be killed. When objected, the appellant assaulted her as a result of which she received injury below the left eye and right hand. The appellant pushed her due to which she fallen down on the road and started assaulting her with fist and leg with intention to kill her. Anyhow people nearby gathered there and saved her life. 5. The police, after investigation, has submitted the charge-sheet under Sections 341, 323, 307 & 354 of the IPC. Accordingly, cognizance has been taken and charge has been framed under Sections 341, 323, 307, 354 and 506 of the IPC to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. For substantiating the prosecution's story, altogether five witnesses have been examined. 7. P.W.-1 is the victim. She has stated in her examination-in-chief that the occurrence took place on 10.06.2017 at 08:00 P.M., while she was going to her home after work. When she reached near Sirka Tracker Stand, the appellant was sitting on a bike said her first to withdraw the case, she have filed, otherwise, he will kill her. She denied to do the same. After this, he started assaulting her, due to which, she got injured near the left eye and right elbow. Thereafter, he started pulling her clothes and choked her. He picked up her two-three times and threw her down and humiliated her in front of everyone by keeping his foot on her chest. She somehow saved her life and reached the police station and submitted a written application. Thereafter, she has undergone medical examination. She has claimed to identify the accused in the Court. During her cross-examination, she has deposed that there were many people around at the time of incident whose names she does not know. She 2026:JHHC:9142 Page | 3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 378 of 2025 does not know which bike the accused was sitting on. The accused called her then she went to him. She has further deposed that the application in the police station was written by another person. She has stated that the accused had physical relation with her for four years by consent. 8. P.W.-2 is Ajay Mahto @ Mithun Mahto who has been declared hostile. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that the victim herself came and verbally abused Dhallo Mahto. He further deposed that the belongs to his village. He does not have any informantion regarding the incident. 9. P.W.3 Heeralal Mahto, who has also been declared hostile. During cross-examinhation, he has deposed that the victim entered the AJSU Office and left after a verbal spat. He has further deposed that the appellant belongs to his village. Apart from this, he does not know anything else. 10. P.W.-4 Sunil Kumar is the I.O of this case, who has stated in his examination in chief that on 10.06.2017, he was posted as Sub-Inspector in the Ramgarh Police Station. He was handed over the responsibility of the investigation by the then Incharge of Ramgarh Police Station. He has identified the signature of the then officer-in-charge on endorsement which is marked as Ext.P-1/1/PW-04. He sent the informant to Sadar Hospital, Ramgarh for medical examination. He made an inspection on the spot of the incident, he recorded the statement of witness namely, Hiralal Mahto and Mithun Mahto, who have supported the incident. He observed that due to previous case there was a fight between the parties. After inspection, he find the allegation true, and submitted the charge-sheet. During cross-examination, he has deposed that he has recorded the statement of the informant but he has not mentioned the same in the case diary. He has further deposed that during the investigation he did not record the statement of the doctor. 11. P.W.5 Dr. Savita Verma, has stated in her examination in chief that on 10.06.2017, she was posted as Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital, Ramgarh. On that day, she had examined the victim and found the following injuries on her person:- 2026:JHHC:9142 Page | 4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 378 of 2025 (1) Injury:- a. Lacerated wound half inch X half inch over left side of chick. b. Abrasion 1” x 1” over right forearm. c. Pain all over body. d. Type of injury- simple by hard and blunt object. (2) Time of injury – within six hours. (3) X-ray is normal. The medical report has been prepared and signed by her which is marked as Ext.P-3/PW05. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.03.2025 on the following grounds:- (i) Both the independent witnesses have been declared hostile. (ii) The injury is not grievous in nature and as such, conviction under Section 325 IPC is not sustainable. (iii) The reason for scuffle is criminal intimidation punishable under Section 506 IPC but the appellant has not been convicted under the said Section. (iv) There is neither any established motive, nor any reason for the scuffle. Hence, the entire allegation is false. 13. Although, independent witnesses have been declared hostile but they have been cross-examined. The material has come that the victim has visited the place of working of the appellant and he has been abused. Thus, the appellant is the victim. On the above material, it has been submitted that the conviction under the above Sections are bad in law which requires interference by this Court. 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, but could not point out any material justifying the conviction under Section 325 IPC. The independent witnesses have deposed that the appellant was the victim and the place of the incident is the working place of the appellant. 15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the records, it appears that:- 2026:JHHC:9142 Page | 5 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 378 of 2025 (i) Except the bald statement of the victim there is no other material against this appellant. (ii) Two independent witnesses have been examined, although, they have been declared hostile, but the material has come that the alleged victim had gone to the place of working of the appellant and she has abused the appellant. (iii) The alleged injury found on the person is simple in nature as per medical evidence. (iv) The prosecution story has been disbelieved by the Court itself because there are discrepancies between medical evidence and other witness testimonies. The prosecution fails to prove the guilt. 16. In view of the above discussion and the materials available on record, this Court finds that there is no enough material for convicting the appellant under Sections 341, 323, 325 of the IPC. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, FTC, Ramgarh, is hereby quashed and set-aside. 17. In the result, the present Criminal Appeal stands allowed and accordingly, disposed of. 18. Since the appellant is already on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond. 19. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this judgment. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Dated: 01st April, 2026 Raja/- Uploaded on 07.04.2026