2026:JHHC:10270 1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 42 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 42 of 2019 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction dated 17.12.2018 and order of sentence dated 21.12.2018 passed in S.T. No. 31 of 2010 with S.T. No. 165 of 2010 arising out Garhwa P.S. Case No. 266 of 2009 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1127 of 2009 by Sri Shambhu Lal Shaw, Additional Sessions Judge-III, Garhwa) 1.Umesh Prasad aged around 37 years 2.Chotu @ Ravi Prasad @ Raiv Prasad, aged around 29 years, both are son of Vishwanath Sao, resident of Village Kalyanpur, P.O., P.S. & District Garhwa --- --- Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent ….... For the Appellants : Mr. Sabyasanchi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P. PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR J U D G M E N T 09.04.2026 1. Heard learned counsel the appellants and learned A.P.P. representing the State. 2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 17.12.2018 and order of sentence dated 21.12.2018 passed in S.T. No. 31 of 2010 with S.T. No. 165 of 2010 arising out Garhwa P.S. Case No. 266 of 2009 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1127 of 2009 by Sri Shambhu Lal Shaw, Additional Sessions Judge- III, Garhwa, whereby both the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 341/324/307 read with Section 34 of the IPC and they have been sentenced to undergo S.I. for 15 days under Section 341/34 of the IPC; R.I. for 1 year under Section 324/34 of the 2026:JHHC:10270 2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 42 of 2019 IPC and R.I. for 5 years with a fine of Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand) and in default of payment of fine, further directed to undergo S.I. for 1 year under Section 307/34 of the IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The criminal law has been put into motion on lodging of an F.I.R being Garhwa P.S. 266 of 2009 on 02.09.2009 at about 07.45 A.M. by the informant Antima Devi. The brief story as per the informant is that on 02.09.2009 at about 07.00 A.M., the assailants, Umesh Prasad, Chottu Prasad , Savita Devi and Preeti Kumari assaulted her husband by spade and rod with an intention to kill causing him seriously injured. Due to bleeding he was treated at Sadar Hospital, Garhwa. The nanad- Aarti Devi of the informant was married with one Ramesh Prasad, son of Bishwanath Sao (Accused persons are in relation of this Ramesh Prasad). They were demanding Rs. 1,00000/-(One Lakh). Upon this, the present Garhwa P.S. Case No. 266 of 2009 dated 02.09.2009 was registered under Section 341, 324,307 and 34 of the IPC against the four named accused persons including the present two appellants. 4. On the basis of the investigation, the Police has submitted the charge sheet twice. First charge sheet was submitted against the accused Umesh Prasad, which was culminated into S.T. No. 31 of 2010. Subsequently, second charge sheet was submitted against accused Chottu @ Ravi Prasad which became S.T. No. 165 of 2010. Since both the sessions trials arose out of the same F.I.R, both were amalgamated and tried together. 5. Accordingly, the charges were framed on 31.07.2012 for the offence under Sections 341,323,324 and 307/34 of the IPC against the accused. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 2026:JHHC:10270 3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 42 of 2019 6. To substantiate the allegations altogether eight prosecution witnesses have been examined. Their brief statements are as follows: - I. P.W.1-Prem Kumar Kachyap- This witness has turned hostile and deposed that he did not see the occurrence. II. P.W.2-Anand Nemhans Minz, He is the investigating officer of the case who has stated that in course of investigation he has investigated the place of occurrence He has proved the memo of injury of victim as Ext. 1. He obtained injury report. He has proved the furdbeyan as Ext., 2 and formal FIR as Ext.3. However, inspite of opportunity and repeated call the defence did not turn up for cross examination. III. P.W.3-Taiyab Ansari- He has deposed that the occurrence took place on 02.09.2009 at about 07.00 morning. He had gone to Chiniya More to bring vegetable. Upon hearing the hulla he reached the place of occurrence and found that the two appellants along with two ladies were assaulting the victim Manoj Prasad Gupta and the informant Antima Devi by spade and danda causing bleeding injury at their forehead and back. The injured were taken to RIMS, Ranchi. In his cross examination he has deposed that both the parties are related to each other. His house is 10 kms away from the place of occurrence. The informant party lives at Garhwa. He has further deposed that he saw the assault upon the informant party but he cannot say who has assaulted the informant. He had got no talk with the victim. IV. P.W.4- Dr. Mohan Prasad who has examined the injured has proved the injury report as follows: injury report of Manoj Sao. 1. Cut injury present over right parietal area of scalp 5" x 1/2" x bone deep with palpably fracture of skull bone. 2026:JHHC:10270 4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 42 of 2019 2. cut lacerated injury behind left ear 1½ x ½" x skin deep. 3. Cut lacerated wound over left ear below ½ " x ½ " skin deep. 4. Haematoma of left cheek. 5. Unconscious state due to head injury. Age of injury within 6 hours. Weapon sharp cut for injury no.1 and HBS for rest injuries. Cross Examination :- Injury No.1 without X-ray plate. The doctor opined that no sonography, C.T.Scan & X-ray report was needed. He formed the opinion on clinical examination. Fracture was not visible to pulpable. Injury nos. 2, 3, and 4 are simple in nature. The doctor opined that all injuries may have caused in collusion with hard surface. V. P.W.5- Manoj Prasad Sao- He is the victim who has stated in his testimony that the occurrence took place 02.09.2009 at 07.00 A.M.. He was returning from morning walk. Near Chiniya More, Chottu @ Ravi, Umesh, Savita and Priti Kumari assaulted him by danda-rod causing bleeding injury upon his forehead, head and ear. Upon hue and cry, the witness Rampratap and Anita Devi came there. They took the victim to hospital and from there he was referred to RIMS, Ranchi where he was treated for 21 days. His right side of body became paralysed. Reason behind the occurrence is that one Aarti Devi his sister was married to one Ramesh and the accused persons are related to this Ramesh. In his cross examination he has deposed that his statement was recorded by the police in his house and did not remember whether he mentioned the words “ return from morning walk”. He has admitted that there is one counter case also. VI. P.W.6- Ram Pratap Sah He has reiterated the prosecution story narrated by P.W.1. He has deposed that he along Tayab Ansari were taking tea at Chiniya More. Upon hearing hue 2026:JHHC:10270 5 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 42 of 2019 and cry they went to place of occurrence where they found that accused Chottu, Umesh and two ladies were assaulting the victim by lathi and spade causing bleeding injury on the head and forehead. He has also stated that the victim was taken to the hospital from where he was referred to RIMS, Ranchi. In his cross examination he has stated that his statement was recorded by the police after 8-10 days. VII. P.W.7-Bal Krishna Bhagat is another investigating officer who has deposed that in course of further investigation he perused the case diary. He also recorded the statement of witnesses and submitted supplementary charge sheet. He obtained the injury report from RIMS, Ranchi. In cross examination he has stated that he recorded the statement of the victim on 14.11.2009 near Surya Clinic. He has stated that there was tension between both the parties regarding teasing of sister of accused Umesh. There is nothing in the case diary regarding injuries of the accused persons. VIII. P.W.8-Antima Devi is the informant of the case who has stated that the occurrence took place on 02.09.2009 at about 07.00 A.M.. She was returning from morning walk and reached near Chiniya More. There she found her husband Manoj Sao was being assaulted by accused Umesh, Chottu @ Ravi, Preeti and Sabita. Accused Umesh gave spade blow at head of the victim causing bleeding injury. Chottu assaulted him by rod at head and other part of the body. Preeti and Savita just caught hold. Upon hue and cry, several people came there. They took her husband to Garhwa Sadar Hospital from where he was referred to RIMS, Ranchi. Due to occurrence, her husband became paralysed on right side. She has further stated that there was a matrimonial dispute 2026:JHHC:10270 6 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 42 of 2019 between her nanad and accused persons and same is the reason behind the occurrence. In her cross examination she has deposed that Aarti Devi is her nanad. There is no dowry case. There is no case against husband of Aarti. Her husband went to jail once. Preeti , who is nanad of Aarti Devi also lodged a case against the informant party. She expressed her ignorance regarding other cases lodged by the accused persons. She reached the place of occurrence where she found her husband lying in an unconscious condition. She took her husband by Tempo. Tayyab Ansari (P.W.3) paid the fare. Her husband did not remain consciousness at Garhwa Hospital. The accused persons had escaped by that time. 7. Apart from oral evidence, some documentary evidences were also adduced by the prosecution which are as under: i. Ext.1- Memo of injury of victim prepared by the I.O ii. Ext.2- The Ferdbeyan iii. Ext.3-Formal F.I.R iv. Ext.4-Injury report of victim v. Ext. 4/1-Further injury report of RIMS, Ranchi vi. Ext. 5-Signature of informant over the ferdbeyan. 8. The defence has also adduced some documents which are as follows: i. Ext.A-C.C of F.I.R of G.R. No. 807 of 2009 ii. Ext.B- CC of deposition of Ramesh Kumar in S.T. 342 of 2010 iii. Ext. C- CC of deposition of Umesh Pd. in ST 342 of 2010 iv. Ext.D-CC of cognizance of order of G.R. – 1124/ 2010 v. Ext. E- CC of FIR of GR -1124/2009 vi. Ext.F- CC of charge-sheet of GR-1124/2009. 2026:JHHC:10270 7 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 42 of 2019 9. After conducting full-fledged trial, the learned Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid. 10. By referring to the above testimonies of the witnesses, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that injury as disclosed by the doctor in cross examination clearly suggest that they are simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. Thus, there is no ingredient for conviction under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC. By referring to the impugned judgment at page 5 wherein the deposition of P.W.5 has been dealt with, it has been submitted there is exaggeration in the statement of P.W.5, which has been accepted by the learned Trial Court also. The demeanor of the witness has not been found proper rather exaggeration has been found. The relevant portion of the judgment is quoted hereunder:- “P.W.5- Manoj Prasad Sao- the victim deposed interalia that the occurrence took place on 02/09/2009 at 07.00 morning. He was returning from morning walk. Near Chiniya More, Chottu @ Ravi, Umesh, Savita and Priti Kumari assaulted the victim by danda-rod causing bleeding injury upon forehead, head and ear. Upon hue and cry the witness Rampratap and Anita Devi came there. They took the victim to hospital. There from he was referred to RIMs Ranchi where he was treated for 21 days. His right side of body became paralysed and steel not working. (This witness is an accused in counter case. He appears in court but no symptoms of paralysis is found). Reason behind the occurrence is that one Aarti Devi is his sister who was married to one Ramesh ( present accused persons are reltions of this Ramesh). He is still sick. He claimed to identify the accused persons. Identification is not in dispute. In cross deposed that police recorded his statement in the house but he cannot remember whether he mentioned the word- return from morning walk. There is one counter case. Statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C was thereafter referred to.” 11. Thus, on the above strength it has been submitted that at best, it is a case under Sections 341 and 324 of the IPC as no ingredients of 307 IPC is present and as such, conviction under Section 307 is 2026:JHHC:10270 8 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 42 of 2019 unsustainable. 12. So far as conviction under Sections 341 IPC and 324 IPC is concerned, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that they have remained in custody for about 14 months. So, in the light of the period undergone by them under section 341 and 324 IPC, he is not pressing for those sections. 13. Learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of conviction. By referring to Section 307 IPC, it has been stated that the witnesses have deposed that the accused have tried to kill the victim and as such offence under Section 307 of the IPC is made out. 14. Having heard the counsel of the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the injuries were found simple in nature to be caused by a hard and blunt substance. Thus, the allegation of using the sharp part of the spade is not made out. Nature of weapon and injury negates the presence of ingredients of section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Further, the demeanor of the witness has not been found up to mark by the trial court. There is exaggeration in his statement. Considering the above facts, the offence under section 307 IPC is not made out. 15. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 17.12.2018 and order of sentence dated 21.12.2018 passed in S.T. No. 31 of 2010 and S.T. No. 165 of 2010 arising out of Garhwa P.S. Case No. 266 of 2009 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1127 of 2009 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Garhwa, so far Section 307 IPC is concerned, it is hereby set aside. 16. So far as other sections i.e., Section 341 and 324 of the IPC are concerned, there are witnesses to the incident and injury has been sustained. However, counsel for the appellants does not intend to press those sections. 17. Since the appellants have already undergone custody for around 2026:JHHC:10270 9 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 42 of 2019 14 months of imprisonment, hence, the sentence so far as Section 341 and 324 of the IPC are concerned, stands served. 18. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal is partly allowed and accordingly disposed of. 19. Since the appellants are already on bail, they are discharged from the liability of bail bond. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Dated 9th April 2026 A. Mohanty Jharkhand High Court Uploaded ____/_____/2026