2026:JHHC:12833 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1092 of 2008 [Against the Judgment of conviction dated 25.09.2006 and Order of sentence dated 26.09.2006 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Latehar in Sessions Trial No. 90 of 2002]. Ali Khan, son of Late Sahadat Khan, Resident of Village – Upar Lota, P.S. & District – Latehar. … … Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Gupteshwar Prasad, Son of Gulab Chand Sahu, Resident of Village – Pandepur, P.O., P.S. – Latehar, District – Latehar. … … Respondents ….. For the Appellant : Mr. Dilip Kr. Prasad, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Satish Kr. Keshri, A.P.P. ….. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT Dated 30th April, 2026 By Court: Heard Mr. Dilip Kumar Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. 2. Above named appellant has preferred this criminal appeal challenging his judgment of conviction dated 25.09.2006 and order of sentence dated 26.09.2006 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Latehar in Sessions Trial No. 90 of 2002, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Section 324 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year. 2026:JHHC:12833 FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a narrow compass is that on 26.03.2002 at about 7:00 A.M., informant was picking mahuwa near the Mahuwa tree of Gupteshwar Prasad. At about 7:15 A.M., Gupteshwar Prasad went to said Mahuwa tree and asked the informant to call Tabarak Khan, then the informant called the said Tabarak Khan near the tree. Thereafter, Gupteshwar Prasad asked Bhagani of co-accused Barik Khan to call Barik Khan. Then Barik Khan and Ali Khan (appellant) reached there. It is further alleged that on arrival of Barik Khan and Ali Khan, scuffled took place between the informant and the Barik Khan and in that event, Gupteshwar Prasad threw Barik Khan on the ground and pinned him down. It is alleged that at the same time, accused, Ali Khan (appellant) gave a knife blows on the back of Gupteshwar Prasad, as a result of which, he sustained three injuries. Thereafter, Gupteshwar Prasad began to return his house with his scooter, but in that course, he fell down from scooter then informant rushed and carried the injured Gupteshwar Prasad to Sub-Divisional Hospital, Latehar for treatment. It is further alleged that after the occurrence, both the accused fled away from there. 4. On the basis of fardbeyan of informant, FIR being Latehar P.S. Case No. 34 of 2002 was registered against 2026:JHHC:12833 the accused persons for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307/34 of the I.P.C. 5. After completion of investigation, the I.O. of the case has submitted charge sheet against the accused persons under the aforesaid offence. After submission of charge sheet, the cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions, where the charge were framed under Sections 307/34 of the I.P.C., to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against accused, altogether 03 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. 7. Apart from oral evidence of ocular witnesses, following documentary evidences were also adduced. Exhibit-1 : R.O. & A.C. of ASI R.K. Paswan on fardbeyan. Exhibit-2 : Injury Report of Gupteshwar Prasad. Exhibit-3 : Formal F.I.R. Exhibit-4 : Endorsement on the fardbeyan. 8. The case of defence was of innocence, false implication and denial of the alleged occurrence. However, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. 2026:JHHC:12833 9. The learned trial court, after evaluating the evidence available on record, held the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 324 of the I.P.C. and sentenced as stated above, which has been assailed in this appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant, without touching the merits of the judgment, has submitted that the appellant has been held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 324 of the I.P.C. and was sentenced for R.I. of one year, out of which, he has remained in custody for more than six months during trial of the case. The occurrence is of the year 2002. The appellant has undergone agony of trial for more than two decades and has been sufficiently punished by undergoing half of the sentence. Therefore, the sentence of the appellant may be reduced / altered to the extent of imprisonment already undergone by him. 11. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant in view of the fact that three incised wound has been caused by the appellant upon the injured on the vital part of the body i.e. chest and scapular region, therefore, the petitioner does not deserve any leniency in matter of sentence and this appeal is fit to be dismissed. 12. It appears that the first information was lodged in the year 2002 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 324, 2026:JHHC:12833 307/34 of the I.P.C. against the appellant and now about two decades have been passed from the date of occurrence. The doctor (P.W.-2) has opined that the injuries were grievous in nature caused by sharp cutting weapon and the injuries were caused within six hours by knife. The appellant has been held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 324 of the I.P.C. and was sentenced for R.I. of one year, out of which, he has remained in custody for more than six months i.e. more than half of the sentence during trial of the case. 13. Therefore, on merits, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction, but so far quantum of sentence is concerned, considering the facts and circumstances of case, nature of offence committed by the appellant, his age, antecedent and character and also in view of the fact that considerable period has elapsed from the date of occurrence and appellant has also remained in custody for more than six months, out of one year sentence, I feel inclined to reduce the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone instead of rigorous imprisonment of one year as awarded by the learned trial court. 14. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence as stated above. 2026:JHHC:12833 15. The appellant is on bail. As such, he is discharged from liability of bail bond and sureties shall also discharged 16. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. [ (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated : 30th April, 2024 Sunil /N.A.F.R. Uploaded On : 07/05/2026