2026:JHHC:12759 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.742 of 2008 Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.742 of 2008 …… [Against the Judgment of conviction dated 20.06.2008 and Order of sentence dated 21.06.2008, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Garhwa in Sessions Trial No.108 of 2003] …… Ashok Kumar Pandey @ Ashok Pandey S/o. Late Dharmjit Pandey resident of village Mangendah, P.S. – Nagar Utari, Dist - Garawa … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Venkatesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, Adv. For the State : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P. ------ P R E S E N T Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT Dated - 30.04.2026 By Court:- Heard Mr. Venkatesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. Jitendra Pandey, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. 2. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment of conviction dated 20.06.2008 and order of sentence dated 21.06.2008 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Garawa in Sessions Trial No.108 2026:JHHC:12759 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.742 of 2008 Page | 2 of 2003 arising out of Nagar Utari P.S. Case No.17 of 2002, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offences under Sections 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for five years along with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the I.P.C. with default stipulation and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the I.P.C. 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal, as emerging from the fardbeyan of the informant Shyama Nand Pandey of Village Mangardah, P.S. Nagar Untari, is that on 20.02.2002 at about 08:00 p.m., while he was sitting in the campus of his house, the accused person arrived there and without any provocation, allegedly began assaulting him. It is further alleged that accused Santosh Pandey was armed with a pistol, Ashok Pandey with a tangi, while the remaining accused were carrying lathis and accused Upendra Pandey was instigating the others. In the course of the assault, the informant sustained injuries on his head which started bleeding and was also assaulted on various parts of his body, 2026:JHHC:12759 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.742 of 2008 Page | 3 an attempt was also made to strangulate him. The occurrence is alleged to have been committed by the accused persons in furtherance of their common object. On the basis of above fardbeyan, Nagar Utari P.S. Case No.17 of 2002 was registered for the offences under Sections 147/148/149/341/323/504/447 of the I.P.C. against the accused persons. 4. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons including the appellant for the offences under Sections 147/148/149/307/323 of the I.P.C. and accordingly, cognizance was taken and subsequently, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 307/149 of the I.P.C. against the accused persons which were read over and explained to them for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In the course of trial, altogether six witnesses were examined and several documentary evidences were also adduced by the prosecution. 2026:JHHC:12759 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.742 of 2008 Page | 4 6. On the other hand, no oral evidence has been adduced by the defence but several documentary evidence have been adduced by the defence also. 7. After conclusion of trial, impugned judgment and order has been passed which has been assailed in this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that altogether seven accused persons were tried for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 307/149 and 323. Out of them, six accused persons have been acquitted from the charges under Sections 147/148 and 307/149 of the I.P.C. and convicted only under Section 323 of the I.P.C. and released after due admonition. This appellant alone was convicted for the offence under Section 307 and 324 of the I.P.C. even without the aid of Section 34 or 149 of the I.P.C. It is further submitted that the testimony of ocular witnesses goes to show that due to land dispute between the parties, a sudden scuffle took place between the parties and the present appellant armed with tangi has given two tangi blows on the head of injured Shyama Nand Pandey. The injury report of said Shyama Nand Pandey goes to show that he has sustained two incised wounds scalp deep which has been opined to be simple in 2026:JHHC:12759 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.742 of 2008 Page | 5 nature. He has also sustained a lathi blow and a lacerated wound was also found. No other person has been injured in the said occurrence. The injured was treated for some days and discharged. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the ingredients of Section 307 of the I.P.C. which commensurate from the definition of Section 300 of the I.P.C. which defines the offence of murder. The requisite intention and knowledge on the part of appellant is absolutely lacking in this case rather the case falls under Section 324 of the I.P.C. The learned Trial Court has committed serious error of law in not recording any findings as to how the offence falls under Section 307 of the I.P.C. while extended the benefit of doubt to all other six accused persons on the basis of same evidence. Therefore, conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is absolutely illegal and fit to be set aside. In the alternative, it is argued that at best the appellant might have been guilty for the offence under Section 324 of the I.P.C. There is no doubt that it was first offence of the appellant and he has been declined benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act by the learned Trial Court 2026:JHHC:12759 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.742 of 2008 Page | 6 without recording any special reasons to which the appellant deserves. 9. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the above contentions and defended the impugned judgment on merits. In view of the fact that there was injury on scalp, a vital part of the body. Therefore, it was likely to cause death. Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. This appeal has no merit and fits to be dismissed. 10. I have given anxious consideration to the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of both side and also perused the impugned judgment and order along with materials available on record. 11. It appears that the learned Trial Court has laid much emphasis upon the vital part of the body where tangi blow was given by the present appellant. There were two incised wounds but the same has been opined to be simple in nature. There was no such force in the said blows to attract the intention or knowledge of the appellant to cause death of the injured although it was aimed at vital part of the body. There was no intervening circumstance to prevent that the 2026:JHHC:12759 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.742 of 2008 Page | 7 appellant to apply mighty tangi blow which may be sufficient to cause death instantaneously. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh and Others, (1988) 4 SCC 551 has held as under:- "7. …………… Under Section 307 IPC what the court has to see is, whether the act irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in that section. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. Without this ingredient being established, there can be no offence of "attempt to murder". Under Section 307 the intention precedes the act attributed to accused. Therefore, the intention is to be gathered from all circumstances, and not merely from the con-sequences that ensue. The nature of the weapon used, manner in which it is used, motive for the crime, severity of the blow, the part of the body where the injury is inflicted are some of the factors that may be taken into consideration to determine the intention." 12. Therefore, in the instant case, the ingredients of offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. are not fulfilled. In view of above, the case falls under Section 324 of the I.P.C. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is hereby set aside and the conviction under Section 324 of the I.P.C. is upheld. 2026:JHHC:12759 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.742 of 2008 Page | 8 13. In view of the above, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in conviction and sentence. 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of offence committed by the appellant, his conduct and antecedents, it appears expedient, in the ends of justice, to extend the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the appellant for the commission of offence under Section 324 of the I.P.C. Therefore, the appellant is directed to be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 upon furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with one surety of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court within two months from the date of this order for maintaining peace and be of good behavior for one year from the date of furnishing the bond. 15. If the bond is not furnished within above stipulated time, the learned Trial Court shall issue notice upon the appellant to secure his attendance for furnishing the bond. 16. In case of violation of terms and conditions of the bond, the learned Trial Court shall call upon the appellant to 2026:JHHC:12759 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.742 of 2008 Page | 9 serve the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to him. 17. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. 18. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court record be sent back immediately to the concerned Trial Court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 30/04/2026 Sachin / NAFR Uploaded On: 05/05/2026