2026:JHHC:5614-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1589 of 2003 [Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.09.2003 & 12.09.2003, respectively passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner- II, Khunti in S.T. No. 19 of 2002] -------- 1. Balter Kandulna, son of David Kandulna, resident of Village-Dahu Tamari, P.S.-Rania, District-Ranchi 2. Pradeep Kandulna, son of Markus Kandulna, resident of Village-Jaipur, P.S.-Rania, District-Ranchi ... ... Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent ----- P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Appellants : Mr. Dilip Kumar Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwary, A.P.P. -------- JUDGEMENT C.A.V. on 14.01.2026 Pronounced on 25/02/2026 Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J: 1. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10th September, 2003, passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II, Khunti in S.T. Case No. 19 of 2002, whereby and whereunder both the appellants have been held guilty for the offences under Section 397 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. Whereas appellant-Balter Kandulna was also convicted under Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years along with fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. with default stipulation. Both the sentences of appellant-Balter Kandulna are directed to run concurrently. 2026:JHHC:5614-DB 2 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1589 of 2003 2. Learned counsel for the appellants, without touching the merits of the judgment, has confined himself towards the quantum of sentence. It is submitted that appellant No.2-Pradeep Kandulna, has served the sentence awarded to him, total 10 years including remission and has been released from custody. Therefore, the appellant is not desirous to prosecute this appeal on merits. So far appellant No.1- Balter Kandulna is concerned, he has also undergone about 5 years 10 months 17 days custody during trial and post-conviction and remission period is not included in the aforesaid custody period. The maximum sentence awarded to the appellant was 10 years in the year 2003 and more than 22 years have been elapsed from the date of occurrence and the appellant was granted bail in the year 2006. Since then, he has maintained the main stream of life and never involved in any criminal activities. Therefore, the appellant prays for modification of his sentence to the extent of imprisonment already undergone by him. 3. Per contra, learned A.P.P., controverting the aforesaid argument in respect of appellant No.1, has submitted that this is a case of robbery with murder therefore, no leniency in the matter of sentence should be taken and this appeal is fit to be dismissed. 4. For better consideration of the rival pleas taken by learned counsel for the respective parties, we have to take brief resume of the case. Factual Matrix 5. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 11.06.2000 at about 11:30 A.M., while informant Mod. Jakir was present in his house, he came to know from some local villagers that two persons had been assaulted and were lying injured near Karo River at Itam Basti. The informant along with other persons went towards place of occurrence and saw that his maternal brother 2026:JHHC:5614-DB 3 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1589 of 2003 Mod. Javed and one neighbour Imtiyaz were lying under pool of blood sustaining injuries and screaming under pain. Upon interrogation, Javed and Imtiyaz told the informant that they had gone to Loagadha Bazar and when reached near Karo River on motorcycle suddenly two persons having knife and pistol stopped them and assaulting by knife robbed Rs. 25,000/- from them. The informant with assistance of villagers took both the injured persons to R.M.C.H., where Mod. Javed Khan was declared dead and Imtiyaz was admitted for treatment. On the basis of above information, F.I.R. was registered against unknown miscreants for the offence under Sections 397 and 302 of I.P.C. After conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the above named appellants under Sections 394, 397 & 302 of I.P.C. and the case was committed to the Court of Session, where S.T. Case No. 19 of 2002 was registered. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 6. In the course of trial altogether 6 witnesses were examined by prosecution and later on two court witnesses were also examined, namely Akhay Kumar Ram, the then Officer-in-charge, Rania P.S. and court witness No.2 Yogeshwar Mani, the then Judicial Magistrate, Khunti, who conducted the T.I.P. of accused persons. 7. Apart from the oral testimony of witnesses, following documentary evidence were also adduced:- i. Exhibit-1- P.M. Report ii. Exhibit-2- Signature on fardbeyan of informant iii. Exhibit 2/1- Signature of I.O. on fardbeyan iv. Exhibit-3- Formal F.I.R. v. Exhibit-4- Seizure list of knife vi. Exhibit-5- T.I.P. chart vii. Exhibit-6-Statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of Balter Kandulna, wherein he has not confessed his guilt. 2026:JHHC:5614-DB 4 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1589 of 2003 8. The case of defence is denial from occurrence and false implication however, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by defence. 9. We have gone through the evidence of witnesses and find that P.W.-6 is the most important witness-cum-injured in this case namely Imtiyaz Ansari who has categorically proved that while he along with Javed Akhtar was going towards Loagadha Bazar on motorcycle at about 10:30 AM and reached near Karo River meanwhile some miscreants intercepted the motorcycle while crossing the river on foot because there was no culvert on the river. The miscreants having knife and pistol came out from bush and Javed was assaulted by knife blow on chest and this witness was assaulted by butt of revolver on his head and face, his teeth were also broken. Thereafter, he was also assaulted by knife in the stomach and the miscreants took away Rs.9,800/- kept in the dikki of motorcycle. Passing by villagers informed to the nearby Basti people, thereafter, one Pramod Choudhary took Javed to Tapkara on Maruti Van and he was also brought to Tapkara for first aid thereafter to R.M.C.H. Ranchi, where he got his treatment about 25-30 days. His statement was recorded by police and test identification of miscreants was also taken place in jail where he identified both the miscreants Pradeep Kandulna and Balter Kandulna at Khunti jail. There is nothing in his cross-examination to disbelieve or cause any doubt in his testimony. Other witnesses examined in this case P.W.-2- Md. Baseer Khan; P.W.-3- Habib Alam; P.W.-4- Md. Yasin; P.W.-5-Md. Jakir Hussain Khan have come to know about the incident from the local villagers and also got knowledge from the surviving victim P.W.-6-Imtiyaz Ansari. C.W.-1 is formal witness & C.W.-2 has proved the T.I.P. chart conducted by him wherein both the appellants were identified by the injured eye-witness (P.W.-6). It also transpires from the evidence of P.W.-6 that the main assailant 2026:JHHC:5614-DB 5 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1589 of 2003 was Pradeeep Kandulna (Appellant No.2) and both the miscreants have taken away money from the motorcycle. 10. In the above mentioned facts and circumstances and considering the role of the appellant No.1 Balter Kandulna and also in view of the fact that 25 years has been lapsed on the date of occurrence and no criminal activities in between the said long period of the appellant No.1 has been brought on record and also in view of his custody for more than 5 years 10 months without adding the period of remission, we feel inclined that appellant No.1 has also been sufficiently punished for his guilt and deserve to be awarded the sentence already undergone by him. 11. In view of above discussion and reasons, the conviction of the appellant is upheld but so far quantum of sentence is concerned, the appellant No.1 is awarded sentence of imprisonment already undergone 5 years 10 months 17 days instead of period of imprisonment awarded to him by the concerned Trial Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence to the extent mentioned above. 12. Appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond and his sureties are also discharged. 13. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court record be sent back to the concerned court for information and needful. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.) Jharkhand High Court Dated 25/02/2026 Arpit/ N. A. F. R. Uploaded on 26/02/2026