Jharkhand High Court
Dipak Joggi @ Dilip Joggi @ Ghuran Goggi vs State Of Jharkhand on 30 October, 2025
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
2025:JHHC:32633
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.129 of 2005
---------
[Against the Judgment of conviction dated 20.12.2004 and Order of sentence dated 21.12.2004, passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.- II, Gumla, in Sessions Trial No.227 of 2003]
---------
Dipak Joggi @ Dilip Joggi @ Ghuran Goggi, S/o Ghuran Joggi, resident of Tetra Bhandar Toli, P.S. Basia, District - Gumla.
..... Appellant
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Gansu Jogi, S/o - Late Benga Jogi, R/o - Village - Tetra, Bhandar Toli, P.O & P.S. - Basia, District - Gumla, Jharkhand. ..... Respondents
---------
PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---------
For the Appellant : Mr. Vishal Srivastava, Advocate For the State : Mr. Santosh Kr. Shukla, A.P.P
---------
Order No.18/ Dated: 30th October, 2025
1. Heard Mr. Vishal Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned A.P.P.
2. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 20.12.2004 and order of sentence dated 21.12.2004, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.-II, Gumla, in Sessions Trial No.227 of 2003, arising out of Basia P.S. Case No.18 of 2003 (G.R. No.210 of 2003), whereby the appellant has been convicted under sections 452/ 323/ 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Section 326 IPC with fine of Rs.2,000/-. The
-1- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.129 of 2005 2025:JHHC:32633 appellant has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 452 I.P.C and also pay fine to the injured Pachisram Joggi with default clause. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. The criminal law has been put into motion by lodging an F.I.R being Basia P.S. Case No.18 of 2003 dated 09.04.2003 in the district Gumla.
The F.I.R has been lodged on the fardbeyan (Ext.-3) of informant namely, Ganshu Joggi (P.W.-5). As per the F.I.R there was quarrel between the family members of the informant and the accused-appellant and on being agitated, the appellant namely, Dipak Joggi @ Dilip Joggi, brought a sharp cutting weapon and by that weapon he has assaulted Pachisram Joggi (P.W.-9) on his neck and his daughter-in- law namely, Smt. Ghurni Devi (P.W.-10) on her head.
On the basis of said allegation, against the present appellant, the investigation has been done and the charge- sheet has been submitted under Sections 452/ 324/ 326/ 307 I.P.C on 04.08.2003. Thereafter, cognizance has been taken and charges have been framed on 09.01.2004 and the case has been committed to the court of Sessions to which the appellant has pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried.
4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined altogether 10 witnesses.
5. P.W.-1, Smt. Sumitra Devi, is an eye witness, but she
-2- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.129 of 2005 2025:JHHC:32633 has been declared hostile. In her cross-examination, she has stated that the present appellant is her son.
6. P.W.-2, Smt. Bhokhali Gosain, who is mother-in-law of the appellant, has stated that there was darkness and there was free fight between the family members and due to which she has sustained injury.
7. P.W.-3, Dinesh Gosai, has been declared hostile, but he has stated that the present appellant is his son-in-law.
8. P.W.-4, Mahli Bhagat, is not a related witness and he has been declared hostile.
9. P.W.-5, Ganshu Joggi, is the informant of the case and father of the victim Pachisram Joggi (P.W.-9) and he has supported the allegation. In his cross-examination, it has only been solicited that the parties were in litigating terms and they are close relatives.
10. P.W.-6, is the Doctor, who has examined the victim Pachisram Joggi (P.W.-9) and Smt. Ghurni Devi (P.W.-10) and he has also proved the injury. Injury upon Smt. Ghurni Devi is on the left perital region scalp, caused by hard and blunt substance, while injury upon Pachisram Joggi is on the left side of neck, which has been caused by a sharp cutting weapon.
11. P.W.-7 is also a Doctor, who has examined the injury over P.W.-3 namely, Dinesh Gosai and Bhokhli Gosain (P.W.-
2), wife of Dinesh Gosai. The injuries, upon the above persons have been found simple in nature, caused by hard and blunt substance.
-3- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.129 of 2005
2025:JHHC:32633
12. P.W.-8 is the investigating officer, who has supported his investigation and no contradiction or anything has been extracted by the defence, in his cross-examination.
13. P.W.-9, Pachisram Joggi, is the injured witness and he has stated that there was a cut injury on the left side of his neck and in fact, due to the said injury, his left hand has become useless.
14. P.W.-10, Smt. Ghurni Devi, is also an injured witness. She has sustained injury on her head, caused by the appellant.
15. The trial Court, after recording the evidence of witnesses, cross-examination, and the statement of the accused person, found the charge levelled against the appellant proved. Accordingly, the appellant has been found guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under sections 452/ 323/ 326 of the Indian Penal Code.
16. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, as per the story framed by the prosecution, that there was a free fight between the family members and even the female members were also fighting. Further, even as per the allegation, weapon used in the commission of crime is a household article and hence, there is no question of any premeditation, rather it is a provocation made by the other side. Further, the injury report, which has been brought on record, has neither been mentioned in the F.I.R, nor it has been mentioned in the charge, framed by the trial court rather the evidence brought on record suggests
-4- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.129 of 2005 2025:JHHC:32633 that simple injury has been caused, which has been aggravated just to settle the score, as the parties were in litigating terms. Further, the parties are the close family members.
17. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that so far as non-functional of the left hand of Pachisram Joggi (P.W.-9), after the injury, is concerned, the same has not supported by any medical evidence, neither any such statement has been made by any of the witnesses, except P.W.-9. Thus, at best this case will fall under Section 335 I.P.C, as there was a free fight between the parties and as such, the conviction of the appellant under Section 326 I.P.C is not sustainable.
18. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has remained in custody for about one year and eight months and the incident is of the year 2003 and as such this Court may consider, by reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant.
19. So far as conviction under Section 452 I.P.C is concerned, the witnesses have themselves stated that the fight has taken place outside the residential house and the prosecution evidence does not support the charge framed under Section 452 I.P.C.
20. Learned A.P.P has although supported the conviction but could not point out any material to suggest that the injury sustained by Pachisram Joggi was grievous in nature
-5- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.129 of 2005 2025:JHHC:32633 and further, it has not been disputed that there was a free fight between the parties.
21. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the record, it appears that there was a free fight between the parties and this fact has also been admitted by the witnesses and further, the injury caused, although is on the vital part of the body, but so far as evidence of P.W.-9 is concerned, regarding the non- functioning of the left hand is concerned, that appears to be exaggerated.
22. The fact remains that there was free fight between the parties and injury has been caused to the victim, which has been attributed by the present appellant and there is enough material on record to sustain the charge levelled against this appellant but not under Section 326 IPC rather under Section 335 I.P.C, as there was no premeditation and the weapon used is also a household article and accordingly conviction under Section 326 IPC is converted under Section 335 I.P.C.
23. So far as conviction under Section 452 I.P.C is concerned, there is no evidence rather the evidence suggests that the fight has taken place outside the residential house and as such the conviction of the appellant under Section 452 I.PC is hereby, set aside.
So far as the sentencing part is concerned, considering the fact that the incident is of the year 2003 and also the fact that there was no premeditation and there
-6- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.129 of 2005 2025:JHHC:32633 was no repetition of blow, this Court reduces the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant, i.e. about one year and eight months in the present case.
24. With the above modification, the present appeal is, hereby, partly allowed.
25. The appellant is on the bail, hence, he is discharged from the liability of bail bond.
26. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this Judgment.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, the 30th October, 2025 Ravi-Chandan/- NAFR Uploaded on 06.11.2025
-7- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.129 of 2005