2026:JHHC:12801 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1112 of 2008 ------ Bhuneshwar Agariya, Son of Late Kaila Agariya, Village-Tati, P.O.-Tatijharia, P.S.-Bishungarh, Dist.-Hazaribagh … .... …. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate For the Resp. State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, APP CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT Dated: 30th April, 2026 1. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant-Mr. A.K. Sahani and learned APP. 2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 21.05.2008 and Order of sentence dated 23.05.2008 passed in S.T. No. 351/2000 by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC-III, Hazaribagh, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Section 326 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation. Factual Matrix:- 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the informant party had purchased a piece of land at village-Tati, P.S. Bishnugarh, Dist-Hazaribag about 30 years ago from the date of filing of this case i.e. 16.11.1987. After purchase, the informant party came into possession of the land in question and were cultivating paddy crops and using the usufructs. It is alleged that when the informant party were harvesting the 2026:JHHC:12801 Cr. A (S.J.) No. 1112 / 2008 2 paddy crops over the aforesaid land on 16.11.1987, at about 4:00 PM, all the twenty two accused persons named in the fardbeyan came there armed with Bhala, Lathi, Bombs, Guns, Bow and Arrow asked the informant party to flee away and when the informant party objected the accused persons, one of the accused persons namely Tileshwar Ageria (not facing trial) pelted stone which hit on the head of the informant namely Gobardhan Mahto. It is said that accused Bhuneshwar Ageria (appellant herein) armed with bow and arrows, gave an arrow blow on the stomach of Mahesh Prasad Mehta, who fell down. Thereafter, the informant party fled away and then the injured persons namely Gobardhan Mahto (informant) and Mahesh Prasad Mehta came to Sadar Hospital for treatment. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Gobardhan Mahto, Bishnugarh P.S. Case No. 115 of 1987 was registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 323, 307 of IPC, 25 of Arms Act and 3 & 4 of Explosive Substance Act. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and other accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 323/149, 324/149, 326/149 and 307/149 of the IPC. 4. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where S.T. No. 351 of 2000 was registered. 5. In the course of trial, altogether 6 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. 2026:JHHC:12801 Cr. A (S.J.) No. 1112 / 2008 3 P.W.-1 Maksudan Mahto P.W.-2 Jamuna Mahto P.W.-3 Kaila Mahto P.W.-4 Gobardhan Mahto (Informant) P.W.-5 Reva Mahto P.W.-6 Natho Mahto C.W.-1 u/s 311 Cr.P.C. Dr. M.D. Tiwari 6. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, following documentary evidence has also been adduced by the prosecution:- Ext. 1- Signature on Fardbeyan Ext. 2- Injury Report of Gobardhan Mahto Ext. 2/1 Injury Report of Mahesh Prasad Mehta 7. On the other hand, no oral evidence has been adduced by the defence. The case of defence is complete denial from occurrence and plea of innocence. 8. On the other hand, following documentary evidence has also been adduced by the defence:- Ext.A - Rent Receipt No. 159527 dated 25.02.1992 Ext.A/1 Rent Receipt No. 159528 dated 25.02.1992 Ext.A/2- Rent Receipt No. 3554648 dated 29.04.2007 2026:JHHC:12801 Cr. A (S.J.) No. 1112 / 2008 4 Ext. B- Carbon Copy of Khatiyan of Tati No. 184 9. The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on record held the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 326 of the IPC. Submissions on behalf of appellant: - 10. The learned counsel for the appellant without touching the merits of the judgment has confined his argument towards the quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has remained in custody for about one and half years out of 5 years. It is submitted that there was a bona fide land dispute and the allegation against the appellant is that in a sudden manner, he has shot arrow in the abdomen of injured person namely Mahesh Prasad Mehta who was also not examined in this case. Learned counsel submits that the occurrence is of the year 1987 and now, about four decades have passed from the date of occurrence. It is submitted that the appellant is aged about 60 years, therefore, the appellant has sufficiently been punished for his guilt and again sending the appellant for sustaining rest period of imprisonment would yield no useful purpose. Hence, the sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the imprisonment already undergone by him to meet the ends of justice in this case. 2026:JHHC:12801 Cr. A (S.J.) No. 1112 / 2008 5 Submissions on behalf of the State 11. Per contra, Learned APP has defended the judgment of learned trial Court on merits. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, he has submitted that this case is stale one of the year 1987 and the appellant has sustained one and half year custody out of 5 years, hence appropriate order may be passed in the ends of justice. Analysis, reasons and decision: 12. It appears that injured as well as other ocular witnesses have categorically proved the role of appellant in shooting arrow on abdomen of injured Mahesh Prasad Mehta which finds corroboration from evidence of Dr. M.D. Tiwari (C.W.-1). Therefore, the conviction of the appellant passed by the learned trial Court is upheld. 13. So far as the sentence of the appellant is concerned, it appears that the occurrence is of the year 1987 and since then, four decades have elapsed and the appellant has suffered long agony of the trial and the appellant has remained in custody for about one and half years out of five years as awarded to the appellant, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellant again in jail for sustaining the rest of the imprisonment. Hence, it appears expedient, in the ends of justice to modify/alter the sentence of the appellant. 2026:JHHC:12801 Cr. A (S.J.) No. 1112 / 2008 6 14. Accordingly, the sentence of the appellant is modified to the extent of period already undergone by the appellant i.e. about one and half years out of 5 years as awarded to the appellant. 15. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence as stated above. 16. Appellant is on bail, hence, he is discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds. The sureties are also discharged. 17. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly. 18. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) 30.04.2026 Basant Uploaded on 06/05/2026