2026:JHHC:10904-DB Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.604 of 2002 P a g e 1 |20 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 604 of 2002 …… [Against the Judgment of conviction dated 21.08.2002 and order of sentence dated 22.08.2002, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Hazaribagh , in Sessions Trial No.270 of 1995/F.T.C. III 204 of 2002] …… Surat alias Suraj Prasad Mehta son of Late Rameshwar Mehta, residents of Village – Pabra, P.S. Katkamsandi, dist.-Hazaribagh. .... …. Appellant 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 Appellant : Mr. H.K. Shikarwar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P. …… JUDGMENT C.A.V. on 18.03.2026 Pronounced on 16.04.2026 Per Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. We have already heard Mr. H.K. Shikarwar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Saket Kumar, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. 2026:JHHC:10904-DB Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.604 of 2002 P a g e 2 |20 2. It is pertinent to mention at the very outset that during the pendency of this appeal, appellant No.2 Gulab Deo Mehta died and his case have been abated vide order dated 17.11.2025. This appeal is heard on behalf of above named sole appellant. 3. Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 21.08.2002 and order of sentence dated 22.08.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.-III, Hazaribagh in S.T. No.270 of 1995/F.T.C. III 204 of 2002, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The appellants have been acquitted from the charges under Section 148, 323 and 34 of the I.P.C. The other co-accused persons, jointly tried with the appellants, namely Raj Kumar Mehta, Ram Chandra Mehta and Ram Prakash Mehta have been acquitted extending the benefit of doubt. FACTUAL MATRIX 4. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a nutshell is that there was land dispute between the informant and the accused persons and litigation was also pending in the Court. It is alleged that on 06.11.1994 at about 11:00 a.m., all the five accused persons armed with bhala, pharsa and lathi etc. approached to the field of 2026:JHHC:10904-DB Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.604 of 2002 P a g e 3 |20 informant and started harvesting paddy crops grown by the informant. It is further alleged that informant's father Ishwar Dayal Mehta, Ram Awatar Mehta and uncle Bajrangi Prasad Mehta went to the field and objected against the harvesting of paddy crops by the accused persons, upon which Suraj Prasad Mehta ordered to kill them and himself also started assaulting to informant's father, uncle and brother by lathi and other accused persons started assaulting them with danda, bhala etc. In the above incident, informant's uncle Bajrangi Prasad Mehta fell down and became unconscious. The informant and his cousin Ram Awatar sustained serious head injuries. It is further alleged that injured Bajrangi Prasad while under treatment died in the hospital. It was alleged that several villagers have seen the occurrence. The accused persons forming an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon had assaulted the informant, his father, his cousin brother and inflicting serious injuries and also murdered his uncle Brajrangi Prasad. The fardbeyan of the informant Govind Prasad Mehta was recorded by S.I. Arun Kumar Singh, Officer-In-Charge, Pelawal police outpost under Katkamsandi Police Station on 06.11.1994 at about 16:30 hours in Sadar Hospital Surgical Ward No.13, 2026:JHHC:10904-DB Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.604 of 2002 P a g e 4 |20 Hazaribagh. The formal F.I.R. was registered for the offences under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 324, 323, 307 of the I.P.C. 5. After conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against all the five accused persons for the aforesaid offences. The accused persons denied the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried. 6. After conclusion of trial, impugned judgment and order has been passed which is assailed in this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment and order has submitted that although, charge-sheet was submitted against five accused persons for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 324 and 307 of the I.P.C. but the charges were framed against the five accused persons for offences under Section 148, 302 read with Section 34 and 323 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. The learned Trial Court has failed to record any finding that there was any pre-plan and all the convicted appellants have acted in concerted manner in furtherance of their common intention to kill the deceased. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court also found that there was no specific overt act against each accused persons, therefore, acquitted three of the accused persons after conclusion of trial. So far as role of present sole appellant is concerned, there is specific 2026:JHHC:10904-DB Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.604 of 2002 P a g e 5 |20 allegation that he ordered the other co-accused persons who assault the injured persons including the deceased. No overt act has been attributed against the present appellant. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant with the aid of Section 34 of the I.P.C., is not justified in this case. Admittedly, the dispute broke up between the parties in a sudden manner while the appellant's family members were harvesting paddy crops on their own filed. The informant parties were aggressors and in spite of pendency of suit, they were adamant to grab the field of the appellants without lawful justification. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant is based upon non- consideration of material evidence available on record. The other co-accused persons with similar allegation and on the basis of same evidence, have been acquitted from the charges. Therefore, the appellant could not have been convicted unless their specific role and actual participation in the alleged offence, be exclusively proved. Therefore, the distinction made by the Trial Court while appreciating the evidence against the appellant is unfounded and not sustainable. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant is liable to be set aside by allowing this appeal. 2026:JHHC:10904-DB Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.604 of 2002 P a g e 6 |20 In the alternative, it is submitted that admittedly, the dispute arose in a sudden manner due to dispute of harvesting crop without pre-meditation and without taking any undue advantage of the situation. The role of appellant is also only of inciting the occurrence without any participation by any lethal weapon. Therefore, offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. is not constituted in this case rather it falls under Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. On the date of judgment, the appellant was aged about 56 years and at present, he is 80 years' old person and anyhow discharges his daily pursuit of life. More than three decades have been lapsed from the date of occurrence. The appellant has faced the agony of trial throughout this period. It is further submitted that during investigation, the appellant voluntarily surrendered before the Court on 16.11.1994 and was released on bail granted by the Hon'ble High Court, Patna, Ranchi Bench and released on 08.12.1995. The petitioner was further taken into custody, after passing the judgment of conviction on 21.08.2002 and thereafter, released on bail during pendency of this appeal on 04/16.12.2002. Therefore, the appellant has undergone the period of custody about one and a half years during pendency of this case and has sufficiently been punished for his guilt as extending incitement at the spur of moment. Therefore, the appellant also deserves 2026:JHHC:10904-DB Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.604 of 2002 P a g e 7 |20 sympathetical approach and leniency in the matter of sentence which may be reduced and modified accordingly. 8. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. defending the impugned judgment of the appellant has submitted that the present appellant was specifically involved in hurling the dispute and on his provocation/instigation, the occurrence of assault took place. The first blow was inflicted by the present appellant himself then others also joined with him and committed the brutal assault resulting in death of the deceased. The appellant has caused head injury by lathi to the deceased fitted with iron rim, therefore, he does not deserve any leniency in the matter of sentence also. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order calling for any interference by way of this appeal which is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed. 9. Before imparting our verdict on the above point, we have to take brief resume of the evidence adduced during trial. 10. It appears that altogether 9 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The main witness of fact is P.W.5 Govind Prasad Mehta-cum-informant of this case. According to his evidence on 06.11.1994 at about 11:00 a.m., he was present at his home then received information that Suraj Prasad Mehta, Gulab Deo Mehta, Raj Kumar Mehta, Ram Prakash Mehta and Ram Chandra Mehta 2026:JHHC:10904-DB Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.604 of 2002 P a g e 8 |20 are harvesting his paddy crop situated at Kolhuabad. Upon this information, he along with Mahesh Prasad Mehta, Pradeep Kumar Mehta, Chato Mahto, Sarju Mahto went to his field and saw the accused persons were harvesting his paddy crop. It is stated that when this witness and his aforesaid family members forbade the accused persons from cutting the paddy crops then present appellant Suraj Prasad Mehta incited the other accused persons saying that "ekjks lkyksa dks", upon this, all the accused persons started assaulting to informant and his family members. He has simply stated that present appellant and Gulab Deo Mehta assaulted to his uncle Bajrangi Mehta, Ram Awatar Prasad Mehta was assaulted by Gulab Deo Prasad Mehta, Raj Kumar Mehta and Om Prakash Mehta. Ishwar Dayal Mehta was assaulted by Suraj Prasad Mehta (appellant) and Raj Kumar Mehta. This witness was assaulted by present appellant and Ram Chandra Mehta. According to his evidence, his uncle Bajrangi Mehta fell down and became unconscious then he was brought to Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh but in the way he died. His fardbeyan was recorded by the police in the Sadar Hospital wherein he has proved his signature as Ext.1. It is quite apparent from the evidence of this witness that he has stated nothing as to what weapon the accused persons were 2026:JHHC:10904-DB Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.604 of 2002 P a g e 9 |20 holding and on which part of the body they have assaulted to the injured persons. Although, it was mid-day, when the occurrence took place and there were no crowd of persons rather from each side, there were five persons only. In his cross-examination, this witness admits that land dispute is going on between the parties since long and civil and criminal cases are also pending. He has failed to produce any documentary evidence showing his possession over the disputed land. In his cross-examination, this witness admits that in the F.I.R., he has stated as to which of the accused person has assaulted by which weapon to the injured persons. He has denied that in the said incident Suraj Mehta and Ram Chandra Mehta were also assaulted by the informant party and injured. He has denied the suggestion of defence that the disputed land was in possession of accused persons and they have grown the paddy crop and were harvesting the same but the informant party were raising objection and wanted to grab the paddy crop of the accused persons and lodged this false case. P.W.6 Ram Awatar Prasad Mehta is the son of deceased Bajrangi Mehta. According to his evidence on 06.11.1994 at about 09:30 a.m., he was going to his paddy field then saw that Suraj Prasad Mehta, Gulab Deo Prasad Mehta, Raj Kumar Prasad 2026:JHHC:10904-DB Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.604 of 2002 P a g e 10 |20 Mehta, Ram Chandra Mehta and Ram Prakash were harvesting his paddy crop. Upon protest, the accused persons assaulted to his father and uncle. According to him, Suraj Prasad Mehta gave a lathi blow in the abdomen of the deceased. He was also assaulted by Raj Kumar and Gulab Deo on head and other part of body. His father died while taking to the hospital. His brother Govind Prasad Mehta was also assaulted by accused persons. This witness has also not stated about specific role of each of the accused persons and also admits that his uncle Bajrangi Mahto sustained abdomen injury by lathi. Present appellant Suraj Prasad Mehta had assaulted to his father on abdomen by lathi. In his cross-examination, his attention has been drawn towards statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., wherein he has not stated that Suraj Prasad Mehta assaulted with lathi in the abdomen to his father which he has denied. P.W.1 Chato Mahto has deposed that on the date of occurrence at about 11:00 a.m., he was present in a garden near the place of occurrence where he saw that all the five accused persons Surat Mahto, Gulab Deo Mahto, Raj Kumar Mehta, Ram Chandra Mehta and Ram Prakash armed with lathi and bhala were harvesting in the field of Bajrangi Mahto. This witness forbade the accused persons from cutting paddy crops and also suggested that 2026:JHHC:10904-DB Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.604 of 2002 P a g e 11 |20 at first get the matter resolved by Mukhiya and Sarpanch. Upon this, the accused persons threatened and scold him and dashed due to which he fell down. In the meantime, Surat Mahto and Gulab Deo Mahto assaulted to Bajrangi Mahto. This witness has also not stated that by which weapon and on what part of body, the deceased was assaulted by present appellant. P.W.2 Mahesh Prasad Mahto has also seen the accused persons while harvesting paddy crops in the field of informant party having iron fitted lathi. He has further stated Ishwar Mahto, Bajrangi Mahto, Ram Awatar, Govind Mahto and Sudama reached at the field and forbade the accused persons from harvesting their paddy crops. Then Surat Mahto dashed them and ousted from the field. He has further stated that Surat Prasad and Gulab Deo both assaulted to Bajrangi by lathi who died during the course of treatment. Thereafter, accused persons fled away. In his cross-examination, this witness has expressed his ignorance that the accused persons have grown the paddy crop and were in possession of the same. He has denied that Surat and Raj Kumar also sustained injuries assaulted by informant party. P.W.3 Pradeep Kumar Mehta @ Bachhu Mehta has been tendered by the prosecution and expressed no knowledge about the occurrence. 2026:JHHC:10904-DB Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.604 of 2002 P a g e 12 |20 P.W.4 Ishwar Dayal Mahto has also stated about scuffle took place between the parties due to harvesting of paddy crops by the accused persons. He has given a new story that the accused persons were concealing their arm in the field and Surat Prasad Mahto (present appellant) assaulted to Bajrangi Mahto by lathi fitted with bhala. Gulab Deo also assaulted to the injured Bajrangi by lathi. He was assaulted by Surat and Raj Kumar and sustained injury on head. P.W.7 Dr. Nidhish Sharan has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and has examined the injured persons. (I) According to this witness on 06.11.1994, he examined the Ishwar Dayal Mahto at about 12:35 p.m. and found following injuries on his person :- (i) Lacerated wound on the right parietal region 1½" x ¼" bone deep. (ii) Swelling over the left leg 3" x 3". Above injuries were simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance such as lathi. (II) On the same day at about 12:35 p.m., he examined Ram Awatar Mahto and found following injuries :- 2026:JHHC:10904-DB Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.604 of 2002 P a g e 13 |20 (i) Lacerated wound left parietal region 2" x ½" x bone deep. (ii) Parallel bruise right fore arm 3" x 1". (iii) Parallel bruise left fore arm 3" x 1". Above injuries were opined to be simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance like lathi. (III) On the same day, he examined Raj Kumar Mehta at about 12:40 p.m. and found following injuries :- (i) Haematoma on left parietal region 2" x 2" in size. This injury also opined to be simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. (IV) On that very day, he has examined Govind Prasad Mehta at about 12:45 p.m. and found following injuries :- (i) Lacerated wound on left parietal region 2½" x ¼" bone deep. This injury opined to be simple in nature caused by hard blunt substance. (V) On that very day, this witness has examined Suraj Prasad Mehta at about 12:50 p.m. and found following injuries :- 2026:JHHC:10904-DB Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.604 of 2002 P a g e 14 |20 (i) Lacerated wound on left ring finger ½" x ½". (ii) Lacerated wound on left parietal region 3" x ½" x bone deep near midline. Both the injuries were simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. All the above injury reports are in his handwriting and bears his signature which marked as Exts.2, 2/1, 2/2, 2/3 and 2/4 respectively. P.W.8 Dr. Prem Das has conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased Bajrangi Mahto and found following :- (i) Eyes – open, mouth – open, rigor mortis present. Bruise over lower part of left side of chest 3" x 1". 2nd to 6th ribs are fractured on left side. (ii) On dissection – Left lung ruptured. Right lung intact and pale. Heart – all chambers empty. Liver - Lacerated and pale. Spleen – ruptured. Kidney – intact & pale. Stomach contains liquid fluid 6 OZ wall wound. Bladder – empty. Cause of death is opined to be shock and haemorrhage caused by chest and abdominal viscera's injury. This injury opined to be 2026:JHHC:10904-DB Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.604 of 2002 P a g e 15 |20 caused within 20 to 30 hours by hard and blunt object like lathi and rod. He has proved the post-mortem report as Ext.3. P.W.9 S.I. Arun Kumar Singh is the Investigating Officer of this case. According to his evidence on 06.11.1994 at about 12:12 p.m., injured Radheshyam Mehta, Govind Prasad Mehta, Ishwar Mehta, Raju Prasad Mehta, Surat Prasad Mehta and Raj Kumar Mehta came to Pelawal outpost. Hence, he issued requisition for medical examination at Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh and also went to Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh where he recorded fardbeyan of Govind Prasad Mehta and assumed the charge of investigation of the case. He has proved the fardbeyan of the informant as Ext.4, formal F.I.R. as Ext.5, inquest report of deceased Bajrangi Mahto who died during treatment as Ext.6. He has recorded re-statement of the informant and also seen the dead body for post-mortem report. He also went to the place of occurrence and on the next day, inspected the same. The place of occurrence is situated in Village Pabra and paddy field situated over Plot No.4082 area 145 decimal which is recorded in the name of Prasadi Mahto. He found about one bundle paddy was harvested and scattered. Towards west side, there was field of Shiv Kumar. After completion of investigation, he submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons. 2026:JHHC:10904-DB Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.604 of 2002 P a g e 16 |20 11. On the other hand, the case of defence is denial from occurrence due to land dispute. One defence witness namely Raghu Mahto (D.W.1) has been examined by the defence, who has stated that he is acquainted with both the parties and also the disputed property. The disputed property is in possession of accused persons who are growing crops and cultivating the same since about 22 to 25 years. He has stated nothing else about the occurrence. 12. We have given anxious consideration to the ocular testimony of witnesses who claim themselves to be eye witnesses-cum-injured persons. It is quite obvious from the evidence of injured witnesses Ishwar Dayal (P.W.4), Govind Prasad Mehta (P.W.5) and Ram Awatar Prasad Mehta (P.W.6) have categorically supported the genesis and manner of occurrence but have failed to attribute any specific weapon and any specific part of body where the present appellant has assaulted. There is allegation that present appellant and the Gulab Deo Mehta (appellant No.2 deceased) have given lathi blow in the abdomen of the deceased and no other accused persons were attributed any role in assaulting the deceased. There is no head injury to the deceased. It also appears from the Post- Mortem Report of the deceased that in the abdomen, he has sustained injuries only on left side causing internal damage of visceras as well as fracture of ribs. There is no evidence at all that 2026:JHHC:10904-DB Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.604 of 2002 P a g e 17 |20 both the accused persons namely Surat prasad Mehta and Gulab Deo Mehta simultaneously assaulted on left side of abdomen to the deceased. It is also stated by witnesses that the appellant was having a lathi fitted with iron rim but the injuries sustained by the deceased are opined to be caused by hard and blunt object. Therefore, there appears material contradictions in the evidence of ocular witnesses regarding inflicting lathi blow in the abdomen of deceased by the appellant Surat Prasad Mehta. It also appears from the fardbeyan of the informant that he has categorically stated that accused Surat Prasad Mehta was exciting and inciting the other accused persons who assault the deceased. Therefore, the specific allegation against the present appellant appears in the evidence of P.W.4 Ishwar Dayal Mahto who says that he was assaulted by lathi by Raj Kumar and Surat and sustained injuries on head and which also finds corroboration from injury report. 13. Upon critical examinations of ocular testimony of witnesses, it also appears that the disputed land was in possession of appellant and they were cultivating the same. They have grown the paddy crop and also harvesting the same. The informant party raised an unwarranted protest and the scuffle broke in a sudden manner without pre-meditation. Therefore, the necessary ingredients constituting the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. is lacking 2026:JHHC:10904-DB Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.604 of 2002 P a g e 18 |20 in this case and in the factual background proved by the prosecution, it comes within exception 4 appended to Section 300 of the I.P.C. which reads as under :- "300. Murder. -- Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or— 2ndly.—If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or— 3rdly.—If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or— 4thly.—If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. Exception 1……… Exception 2………. Exception 3………. Exception 4.—Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Explanation.—It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault." 14. In this view of the matter, the offence falls under Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. There is no concrete evidence against the appellant. 2026:JHHC:10904-DB Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.604 of 2002 P a g e 19 |20 It is also quite obvious that three accused persons against whom specific overt act has been attributed by the eye witnesses, have been extended benefit of doubt and acquitted from the charges levelled against them. The appellant No.2 also died during pendency of this appeal. The specific overt act against the appellant in causing injury to Ishwar Dayal (P.W.4), Govind Prasad Mehta (P.W.5) and Ram Awatar Prasad Mehta (P.W.6) which was found to be simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. 15. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the conviction of appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. is hereby set aside and it is altered and modified to under Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. 16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, genesis and manner of the occurrence as well as the overt act attributed against the appellant and also in view of the fact that more than 30 years have been lapsed from the date of occurrence and the appellant has sustained the agony of trial for such a considerable period and at present, he is extremely old person aged about 80 years, we are of the considered view that the imprisonment of one and a half years already undergone by the appellant during investigation/trial and post-conviction is sufficient punishment for 2026:JHHC:10904-DB Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.604 of 2002 P a g e 20 |20 his guilt. Therefore, the sentence of the appellant is also reduced and he is awarded sentence of imprisonment already undergone for the offence under Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. 17. In view of the above discussion and reasons, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in conviction and sentence of the appellant to the extent as stated above. 18. The appellant is on bail, he is discharged from liability of bail bond and sureties are also discharged. 19. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. 20. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court record be sent to concerned Trial Court for information and needful. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 16/04/2026 Sachin / NAFR Uploaded on: 17/04/2026