Jharkhand High Court
Baidyanath Mandal @ Baijnath Mandal Son ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 April, 2026
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
2026:JHHC:9639
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 548 of 2009
1. Baidyanath Mandal @ Baijnath Mandal son of Late Chattur
Mandal
2. Joy Ram Mandal @ Jairam Mandal son of Baidyanath Mandal
Both residents of Village- Begamganj, P.S.- Radhanagar, District
Sahebganj ... ... Appellants
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, Advocate
---
Reserved on 19.03.2026 Pronounced on 06.04.2026
1. This criminal appeal has been filed against the Judgment of conviction dated 12.06.2009 and the order of sentence dated 17.06.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rajmahal in Sessions Case No.20 of 2005 / Sessions Trial No.133 of 2007 whereby and whereunder the appellants were held guilty for offences under Sections 341, 325 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo-
a. simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 341/34 of IPC;
b. Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 325/34 of IPC and in case of default in payment of fine, the appellants were sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months.
c. Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 307/34 of IPC and in case of default in payment of fine, the appellants were sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months.
All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
12026:JHHC:9639
2. The learned trial court held the appellants guilty after recording the following findings:
"Now, from the perusal of the record, the evidence adduced and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsels from the sides, I find that the prosecution has been able to establish the charges levelled u/Ss. 341, 325, 307/34 IPC against both the accused because the informant has fully supported the prosecution story in course of his evidence. The other two material witnesses have also supported the fact that they did see the injuries on the head of the informant and the doctor has also found two injuries on the head of the informant, one simple and the other grievous, both caused by hard and blunt object. These facts clearly manifest that the injuries were inflicted on the head of the informant which the most vital part of the body and there are repetitions also. These circumstances make it clear that the injuries were inflicted with an intention of causing death. I, thus, find and hold both the accused guilty U/S 341, 325 and 307/34 IPC. Both are convicted. Their bail bonds are cancelled and both are taken into custody."
3. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted as under: -
(a) Informant is the victim in the present case and after the incident, he had gone to the police station which was 14 Kms away from the place of occurrence and lodged the FIR.
(b) The victim was examined by the doctor who was examined as P.W.-2 and the doctor at the first instance had given a report that there were two injuries; one on the right side of the head and other on the left side of the head.
(c) Later on, upon receipt of the X-Ray report, the injury on the right side of the parietal bone of the scalp was opined as grievous in nature on account of fracture and the other injury on the left side was opined as simple and both the injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance.2
2026:JHHC:9639
(d) So far as the manner of occurrence is concerned, it has been alleged in the FIR that the informant was passing by and when he heard the accused persons talking about some land deal, he asked them about the same, he was assaulted by the accused by stone and pieces of bricks.
(e) The investigating officer of the case has not been examined and none of the witnesses who have been examined are eye witnesses to the occurrence and of course, the victim has been duly examined as P.W.-4 who is also the informant.
(f) The doctor has been cross examined at length particularly in view of the fact that the doctor had also given a supplementary injury report and the supplementary injury report is dated 02.01.2003 wherein he has shown that as per the X-ray report, there is fracture on the right side of the parietal bone. The X-ray report marked as Exhibit-1/1 with objection and the same is dated 31.10.2002. The person who had conducted X-ray has not been examined and the doctor, who is not a radiologist, has exhibited the X-ray plate and also the report. There is no statement from the side of the doctor that the injury could be fatal. He further submitted that there is otherwise no evidence to say that the alleged assault was with intention to kill. The doctor in his cross-examination also stated that the person who has done the X-ray is not a doctor. He has stated that K. Prasad who has done the X-ray has got no decree of radiologist and no foreign particle was found on the wound and this doctor in his cross examination has also stated that he is not a radiological expert and could only say that there was fracture. In his cross examination, he has also stated that on the X-ray plate, there was nothing to indicate that the same was the X- ray report of the victim. He has also stated that the X-ray was done by a private doctor who has not even been examined before the court.
(g) The learned court while considering the evidence of the doctor has not even referred to the cross-examination of the doctor who was cross examined on many aspects of the matter.
32026:JHHC:9639
(h) The victim had stated that he was assaulted with piece of brick, but no such particle of brick or even any dust has been found on the injury. As per the version of the informant, he got hurt on his legs and he was assaulted on his legs, but no such injury has been reported by the doctor.
(i) The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that these contradictions having not been taken into consideration, the fact that the victim had gone to the police station 14 km away after the incident shows that the injury was not grievous. There was no preparation to commit the alleged offence as the incident had happened on the spur of the moment.
(j) The learned counsel has submitted that at least the conviction under section 307 of IPC is not made out. He has further submitted that so far as conviction under Section 325 IPC is concerned, the same may be modified.
(k) The date of incident is of the year 2002 and as per the impugned judgment, the appellants do not have any other criminal antecedent. In the year 2009, the appellant no.1 was aged about 47 years and the age of the appellant no.2 was 24 years and their age must be around 64 years and 42 years respectively.
4. The learned counsel for the State while opposing the prayer does not dispute that there is no eye-witness to the occurrence. However, he submitted that the informant, who is the victim of the assault himself, has supported the prosecution case.
5. During the course of hearing, it has also not been disputed that in the impugned judgment, the cross-examination of the doctor has not been considered at all.
6. The learned counsel for the State has also gone through the supplementary injury report which is dated 02.01.2003 and the X-ray report which is dated 31.10.2002. The evidence of the informant (victim) as well as the doctor has been placed at length.
42026:JHHC:9639
7. During the course of hearing, the cross-examination of the doctor has also been placed wherein it has been stated that he is not a radiological expert and he could only say that there was fracture and he is not a radiologist and radiological experts are to say final opinion and K. Prasad has got no decree of radiologist. He also stated that he has not mentioned the identification of the injured in the injury report and age has also not been mentioned and the signature or LTI has not been obtained. To this, the counsel for the State submitted that name and father's name has been mentioned in the injury report.
8. The learned counsel for the State further submitted that there is no doubt that the incident has happened. The learned counsel for the State submitted that the conviction under Section 307 IPC as well as 325 IPC is clearly made out in the present case and the impugned judgment does not call for any interference.
Findings of this court.
9. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the State, this Court finds that the prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of the Informant aged about 35-36 years recorded on 02.10.2002 at 20.00 hours before the police that on the same day in the evening, while he was going on foot alongwith Rs.7,500/- in cash to return the amount to one Talimuddin Sk and also to attend the Kathalbari Hatiya, at 04:30 PM., the accused Baijnath Mandal (Appellant No.1) aged 42 years, Jairam Mandal (Appellant No.2) son of Baijnath Mandal and Shankar Mandal, the other son of Baijnath Mandal aged about 12-13 years came across him near the residence of Janmajay Mandal. They were talking regarding some land. The informant had his land situated adjacent to the land of Baijnath Mandal. The informant asked them as to regarding which land they were talking about. Thereupon Baijnath Mandal started abusing the informant and when the informant protested, Baijnath Mandal took a stone and hit the informant on his head, due to which the informant sustained bleeding injury on his head. Jairam Mandal thrashed the informant on the ground by pulling his legs and climbed on his chest and caught hold his both hands. Thereafter, Baijnath 5 2026:JHHC:9639 Mandal and Shankar Mandal started hitting the informant on his head continuously with pieces of bricks with an intention to commit his murder, due to which the informant sustained three head injuries and bleeding. The Informant further alleged that Baijnath Mandal snatched away Rs.7,500/- from the upper pocket of the shirt of the informant. Hearing the cry of the informant, Milan Devi, Biti Devi, Dipen Mandal and Gourav Mandal arrived and removed the accused persons and took the informant to Belmore and from there the informant boarded a tractor and went to the police station. The Informant said that previous enmity was the reason of the occurrence.
10. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the appellants only and the learned A.C.J.M, Rajmahal took cognizance of the offence in the case. Subsequently, the case was committed to the court of sessions for trial and disposal. Thereafter, charges under Sections 341, 325/34 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
Offence under section 325/34 and 320 of IPC
11. Section 325 of IPC is quoted as under: -
"325. Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.-- Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
12. Section 320 IPC defines 'grievous hurt', which is quoted as under: -
320. Grievous hurt.-- The following kinds of hurt only are designated as "grievous":--
First.-- Emasculation.
Secondly-- Permanent privation of the sight of either eye. Thirdly-- Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear, Fourthly.-- Privation of any member or joint. Fifthly.-- Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint.
Sixthly.-- Permanent disfiguration of the head or face. Seventhly.-- Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth. Eighthly.-- Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.6
2026:JHHC:9639
13. The essential ingredients which are required to be proved in a case for offence under Section 325 of IPC are as under: -
(i) The accused caused grievous hurt to any person
(ii) Such hurt was caused voluntarily
(iii) Such a case was not provided for by Section 335 of IPC
14. In course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether five witnesses including the Informant as P.W.-4 Sheetal Mandal and P.W-2, the doctor who examined the informant after the incident. This Court finds that the other witnesses are not the eye-witnesses of the incident. PW-3 Milan Devi admitted in her cross-examination that she had reached the place of occurrence after half an hour and the appellants had already gone from there. She further stated that she had seen a small piece of brick in the hand of Baijnath Mandal. PW-1 is the sister of the Informant and in her cross- examination, she has admitted that she had gone to the place of occurrence after the assault and the accused persons had already left the place. PW-5 Dhananjay Mandal has been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W-4 is the informant and the injured victim and has named the accused in the fardbayan and is the most important witness.
15. P.W-4 (informant cum injured victim) supported the case with regard to the date and time of incident. He stated that when he tried to find out as to about which land the appellants and Shankar Mandal were talking, the accused persons abused him and threatened to kill him. When he objected, Baijnath Mandal assaulted him with stone causing bleeding injury to him on his head. Jairam Mandal and Shiv Shankar Mandal climbed on his chest and assaulted him on his shoulder, head and chest with an intention to kill him and they took away Rs.7,500/- from his pocket. However, upon raising alarm, Milan Devi, Biti Devi, Gourav Mandal and Dipen Mandal came there and they took him to Belmore and from there, they took him to Udhwa on a tractor where his fardbeyan was recorded and the F.I.R. was lodged. He exhibited his signature on the fardbeyan as Exhibit-2. Thereafter, 7 2026:JHHC:9639 he was taken to Udhwa Hospital for treatment and his X-ray was done by Dr. K. Prasad.
During cross-examination, PW-4 described the place of occurrence and further stated that he was assaulted with stone and the weight of the stone was 1 to 1½ kg. He also stated that he was also assaulted in his legs with pieces of bricks and due to injuries, his legs got swelled. He admitted that police camp was 14 Kilometers away from the place of occurrence. He also admitted that before he fell down, he had already suffered head injury. He further stated that he was assaulted with two stones on right and left head and suffered three injuries on his head. He also stated that the place of occurrence is situated 600 ft. away from his house. He was throughout in senses. He stated during cross examination that he had no previous enmity with Baijnath Mandal, but there was some land dispute and he cannot not say as to when the land dispute had taken place. He denied the suggestion that he has falsely implicated the accused persons due to previous enmity. During cross examination with respect to X Ray, P.W-4 stated that X-ray was conducted after the incident and the X-ray plate and report were given to the doctor and the doctor after seeing the same made the report and sent the report to the police station. He admitted that Dr. K. Prasad had not taken any money and had not even taken the money for the report and had taken Rs.110/- only for photo. He denied the suggestion that whatever report he wanted he could have taken. He also denied the suggestion that X-ray was done after one month of the incident. He further stated that X-ray report was not taken by him and it was sent to the hospital directly.
16. This Court finds that the X-ray report which has been marked exhibit with objection in the present case is dated 31.10.2002 and the X ray report is almost after about one month from the date of the incident. PW-2 Dr. Ajit Kumar Shit is the doctor who claims to have medically examined the Informant-victim on 02.10.2002 and he had found the following injuries:
(i) On the left side of the scalp (Temporal region) lacerated wound size 1" x ¼" x skin deep 8 2026:JHHC:9639
(ii) One lacerated wound on the right side of scalp (right parietal region) size 1" x ¼" x skin deep.
Opinion: Age of injury: within 8 hours. On that time, opinion is kept reserved and patient was advised for X-ray Skull A.P. and lateral view. Time of examination: 21 O'clock on 02.10.02.
He exhibited the injury report dated 09.10.2002 as Exhibit-1. He further deposed that the patient had produced the X-ray report with plate from Sonal X-ray Barharwa by Dr. K. Prasad. On such report, he has given the evidence of fracture on the right side of parietal bone of the skull seen in A.P. view (with objection). He further deposed that he examined the X-ray Plate and was of the similar view. He exhibited the X-ray report dated 31.10.2002 given by Dr. K. Prasad and his writings and signature as Exhibit-1/1 (with objection). He further deposed that that X-ray report shows fracture of the right parietal bone of the skull behind the scar on the basis of which he prepared the supplementary injury report dated 02.01.2003 (exhibit- 1 /2) and his opinion was, Opinion: so, injury no. (ii) is grievous and injury no.1 is simple in nature. Both the injuries are caused by hard and blunt substance. The attachment to the Supplementary Report- two X-ray plates and one report.
He exhibited the supplementary report of Shital Mandal written and signed by him as Exhibit-1/2.
During cross examination, the P.W-2, interalia, deposed that he examined the injured and prepared the injury report Ext.-1 simultaneously. When he prepared the report, the officer-in-charge of the police station came to him to take the report and on that time, he mentioned the date of examination and time of examination and the officer-in-charge probably came to him on 9th. He admitted that on the insertion in the medical report he did not put his initial and the insertion was "2.10.02 at about 21 hrs." He stated that when the injured came to him, he examined him, provided medical aid and referred him. He handed over the injury reports to the Police on 09.10.2002.
92026:JHHC:9639 Again, the injured came to him with the X-ray report, most probably on 02.01.2003, the injured came with the X-ray report. He stated that -
- X-ray was not done in his presence;
- In the X-ray report, the plate no. is not mentioned;
- no number is given in the X-ray plate;
- the name of patient is also not given in the X-ray plate;
- in the X-ray plate only "R" is mentioned and this "R" refers to right side of the concerned part;
- In X-ray plate nothing is given which could show that it is the plate of the injured.
- He is not the radiologist expert.
- He could only say that there were fracture and Radiologist are to say the final opinion. K. Prasad has got no degree of the Radiologist.
- He found only two injuries of MO strokes. No foreign particles were found in these injuries.
- X-ray report with plate was provided before him on 02.01.2003.
- When X-ray was provided before him, he opined that injury no. 1 is simple. The X-ray report is of the right side of the parietal bone showed fracture.
17. This Court finds that the doctor (P.W-2) has been fully cross- examined, interalia, on the point of date of examination, date of injury report, date of supplementary injury report, the manner in which the X ray report reached the doctor, qualification of the doctor who had conducted the X Ray, whether the X ray plate could relate to the informant-victim etc. The doctor admitted in his cross-examination that nothing is given in the X- ray plate to show that the same was the X-ray plate of the victim. This Court finds that the X-ray was done by a private person and the person who had conducted X-ray has not been examined. The doctor, who is not a radiologist, has exhibited the X-ray plate and also the X-ray report. The doctor has also admitted that he is not a radiological expert and could only say that there was fracture. The doctor in his cross-examination has also admitted that Dr. K. Prasad, the person who has done the X-ray, has got no 10 2026:JHHC:9639 degree of radiologist. The doctor also admitted that no foreign particle was found in the injuries.
18. This Court finds that though the informant has denied that the X-ray was done after expiry of about one month, but the fact remains that the doctor who has conducted the X-ray has not been examined and the X-ray report reveals that it is dated 31.10.2002, which is almost after one month from the date of the incident. Further, the doctor who has exhibited the X- ray report has himself stated that he is not a radiological expert and only a radiologist could give final opinion. However, he has stated that there was fracture. He has further admitted that Dr. K. Prasad, who is said to have done X-ray on the victim is not a radiologist.
19. It is important to note that during cross-examination of the doctor, it has clearly come that there was nothing to show from the X-ray plate that it was the X-ray plate of the victim and in the X-ray plate only "R" was mentioned. Further the Doctor has not deposed as to whether the injury was sufficient to kill a person.
20. The date of incident is dated 02.10.2002. So far as initial injury report is concerned it is dated 09.10.2002 in which two wounds on the head, one on the right and one on the left of identical dimensions were recorded, but the opinion was reserved and nothing was mentioned as to whether the injuries were grievous or not. In the injury report, nothing was mentioned as to whether the injury was caused by hard and blunt substance or not. However, the subsequent injury report dated 02.01.2003 was prepared by the same doctor after receiving the X-ray report and since there was a fracture, the injury no.2 (right side injury on the head) was said to be grievous and injury no.1 (left side on the head) was said to be simple in nature and both the injuries were said to have been caused by hard and blunt substance.
21. On the face of the supplementary injury report dated 02.01.2003, the date has been written in a different ink altogether and the supplementary injury report is in turn based on X-ray report dated 31.10.2002. The doctor who had prepared the injury reports has been thoroughly cross-examined 11 2026:JHHC:9639 and there is no satisfactory explanation and the X report could not be linked with that of the victim-informant.
22. This Court is of the considered view that the grievous injury has not been proved as the opinion of the doctor is primarily based on the X-ray report and the X-ray report with respect to the alleged head injury under the aforesaid circumstances is itself doubtful which was conducted after expiry of about one month from the date of the incident and the X-ray plate itself did not reveal that it was the X-ray plate of the victim involved in this case. The person, who has conducted the X-ray, has also not been examined. Supplementary injury report dated 02.01.2003 ( exhibit- 1 /2) showing that the injury was grievous on account of fracture which in turn is based on X- ray report dated 31.10.2002 (exhibit- 1/1) has not been proved. Since the finding of grievous injury is based on the X-ray report, which itself is doubtful, the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt with respect to the conviction under Section 325 of IPC. It is important to note that the cross- examination of the doctor has not all been referred/considered by the learned court while convicting the appellants under section 325/34 of IPC and in view of the aforesaid discussions in the light of the cross examination of the doctor and other materials, the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt so far as offence under section 325 of IPC. However, the fact remains that it has been sufficiently proved on the basis of materials on record that the victim suffered head injuries, though simple in nature as the X-ray report is not reliable and therefore the conviction is required to be modified to conviction under section 323/34 of IPC.
23. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, the appellants are acquitted from the charge under Section 325/34 of IPC giving them the benefit of doubt and the conviction of the appellants under Section 325/34 of IPC is converted to the offence under Section 323/34 of IPC on account of causing simple injury which is proved.
Offence under section 307/34 of IPC
24. The learned trial court recorded that the informant had fully supported the prosecution story and the other two material witnesses have also 12 2026:JHHC:9639 supported the fact that they saw the injuries on the head of the informant and the Doctor also found two injuries on the head of the informant; one simple and the other grievous, both caused by hard and blunt substance. The learned court was of the view that the injuries were inflected on the head of the informant which is a most vital part of the body and there are repetitions also and was of the view that these circumstances make it clear that the injuries were inflected with an intention of causing death and consequently, convicted both the accused for offence under Sections 341, 325 and 307/34 of IPC.
25. Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under:
"307. Attempt to murder--
Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
Attempts by life convicts-- .............................................
26. In the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2009) 4 SCC 26 (State of M.P. vs. Kashiram & Others), it has been held, interalia, in paragraph 9 to 12 as to the ingredients to offence under section 307 I.P.C. which are as under: -
"9. To justify a conviction under this Section, it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The Section makes a distinction between an act of the accused and its result, if any. Such an act may not be attended by any result so far as the person assaulted is concerned, but still there may be cases in which the 13 2026:JHHC:9639 culprit would be liable under this Section. It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. 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 the Section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof.
10. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. The Section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the Section. Therefore, an accused charged under Section 307 IPC cannot be acquitted merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt.
11. This position was highlighted in State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil and Ors. (1983 (2) SCC 28), Girija Shanker v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2004 (3) SCC 793), R. Parkash v. State of Karnataka (JT 2004 (2) SC 348) and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Saleem @ Chamaru & Anr. [2005 (5) SCC 554].
12. Whether there was intention to kill or knowledge that death will be caused is a question of fact and would depend on the facts of a given case. The circumstances that the injury inflicted by the accused was simple or minor will not by itself rule out application of Section 307 IPC. The determinative question is intention or knowledge, as the case may be, and not nature of the injury."
27. In the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 476 of 2015 decided on 17.04.2025 (State of Himachal Padesh versus Shamsher Singh), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasized that to attract Section 307 IPC, it is not necessary that the hurt should be grievous 14 2026:JHHC:9639 or of any particular degree and it has been held that if hurt of any nature is caused and it is proved that there was intention or knowledge to cause death, Section 307 IPC would stand attracted.
28. Thus, in order to attract offence under section 307 I.P.C., the core issue to be determined is as to whether there was intention or knowledge to cause death irrespective of the injury suffered. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the aforesaid judgement that although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds.
29. As already held above, the informant victim suffered two simple injuries on his head and therefore the conviction under section 325 IPC is not sustainable and his conviction has been converted into conviction under Section 323 I.P.C. and it has to be examined in the light of the aforesaid judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as to whether offence under section 307 I.P.C. is attracted or not and this will depend upon the facts and circumstances of this case.
30. In the present case, it appears that the entire incident had taken place when the informant had asked the accused persons as to about which land they were talking amongst themselves, to which the accused persons got annoyed, abused the informant and also assaulted him.
31. This Court finds that there was no preparation from the side of the appellants for committing the occurrence. The records also reveals that the investigating officer of the case has not been examined and the nature of the stones/pieces of bricks, which was said to have been used to give effect to the injury, have not been exhibited. The doctor in his cross-examination has not found any foreign particle over the injuries.
32. This Court further finds that after the incident on 02.10.2002, the victim had gone to the police station which was 14 Kilometers away, although his house was just 600 ft. away from the place of the incident. The informant had mentioned numerous injuries suffered in his legs and he also 15 2026:JHHC:9639 stated that his legs were swelling because of injury and he suffered injury on his chest, but no such injury was found in his body except two injuries, both on the head.
33. The perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the learned court has not at all considered the cross-examination of the doctor, who was examined as PW-2, who at the first instance, had given a report that there were two injuries, one on the right side of the head and the other on the left side of the head and on the basis of the supplementary injury report prepared by him, he stated that the injury on right side of parietal bone of the skull was grievous in nature on account of fracture and the injury on the left side of the head was simple and both the injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance. The learned court also did not consider the fact that the victim had mentioned about three head injuries but only two injuries were found in the medical examination report and further the victim had mentioned about multiple injuries including injuries on chest, leg, due to which he suffered swelling on his leg, but the doctor did not find any injury apart from the aforesaid two injuries. The aforesaid discussions reveal that there was clear exaggeration with respect to the nature and extent of injury suffered by the informant-victim as mentioned in the FIR and also in the evidence of the P.W-4 when seen in the light of the medical examination report of the victim which is elaborated as under.
34. The Doctor found two injuries, one on the left side of the scalp (Temporal region) lacerated wound size 1" x ¼" x skin deep and on the right side of scalp (right parietal region) one lacerated wound of the same size , that is, 1" x ¼" x skin deep. It is apparent that as per the injury report, both injuries left and right of the head are of identical in nature and size. The left side injury was taken as simple injury and the right-side injury was taken as grievous only on account of fracture. The informant claimed that both the accused persons assaulted him and he suffered three head injuries, but only two head injuries were found in the medical examination report. The informant claimed to have suffered multiple injuries including injuries on 16 2026:JHHC:9639 chest, leg, due to which he suffered swelling on his leg, but the doctor did not find any such injury as per the medical examination report.
35. The mismatch with respect to the injuries said to have been suffered by the informant as per the FIR and his examination as PW-4 reveals that the informant had exaggerated the nature and extent of the injury suffered by him. The informant also had stated that Baijnath Mandal has snatched away Rs. 7,500/-, but he has not been convicted for such offence. Further, the informant in the FIR also stated that there was previous enmity which was the reason for the occurrence, but no particulars of the previous enmity has been brought on record by the informant. During cross-examination, the informant has stated that he has no previous enmity with Baijnath Mandal but there was some land dispute and he could not say as to when was the land dispute has been taken place. He has further stated that he was assaulted with stones and the weight of the stones was 1 to 1½ KG and his house was 600 ft. away from the place of occurrence and after the incident he went to the police camp which was 14 KMs away from the place of occurrence and he was throughout in his senses. No stone or brick has been exhibited and the investigating officer of the case has not been examined.
36. The doctor, who had examined the victim at the first instance prepared injury report dated 09.10.2002 but did not opine as to whether the injury was grievous or simple; subsequently supplementary injury report dated 02.01.2003 was prepared alleged to have been based on the X-ray report dated 31.10.2002 showing fracture on the head and on that basis it was opined by the same doctor, who had prepared the injury report dated 09.10.2002, that the injury no. 2 was grievous injury and the injury no.1 was simple in nature. The X-ray report itself reveals that it is dated 31.10.2002 i.e. after about one month from the date of incident and there is no explanation for such delay. The person who conducted the X-ray and prepared the X-ray report has not been examined and it has come in the evidence of the doctor (P.W-2) that the X-ray was done by a doctor who was not a radiologist and P.W-2 himself was not a radiologist. Admittedly, the X-ray report is of a private doctor. It has also come in the evidence of the 17 2026:JHHC:9639 Doctor (P.W-2), who had examined the informant/victim being a doctor of Primary Health Center (PHC), that the X-ray report was produced before him by the informant /victim and there is nothing on the X-ray plate to show that the X-ray plate was that of the victim/informant. Thus, X-ray report was not collected by the investigating officer of the case and was consequently not produced by the Investigating officer before the doctor who had prepared the supplementary report on 02.01.2003 based on X-ray report as produced by the victim/informant. Further, the investigating officer of the case has also not been examined. The prosecution has failed to prove that the X-ray plate was that of the victim /informant and that the X-ray report was with respect to the incident of 02.10.2002 beyond all reasonable doubts. This Court has already recorded above that the conviction of the appellants under section 325/34 of IPC cannot be sustained and they are to be convicted under section 323/34 IPC for having inflicted simple injuries. Further, there is no cogent and reliable material on record to prove that the simple injury caused due to hitting by stone was with any intent or knowledge to kill.
37. Except a statement of the informant that he was assaulted with an intention to kill, there is no other evidence and the description of assaults suffered by him in his evidence is not fully corroborated with the report of the doctor except two head injuries. The informant has also denied any previous enmity with the accused persons, although he has said that there was land dispute, but could not say as to when the land dispute had occurred. Further, as held above, the FIR and the evidence of the victim/informant with respect to the extent and number of injuries suffered is exaggerated and does not fully match with the injury proved through medical evidence. Therefore, a bald statement of the victim that he was assaulted with intention to kill cannot be relied upon to uphold the conviction of the appellants under Section 307/34 IPC. The aforesaid aspects of the matter has not been properly considered by the learned court.
38. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case and the materials placed on record, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove intention or knowledge to cause death, hence 18 2026:JHHC:9639 the case under Section 307 of IPC against the appellants has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubts and the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt. The aforesaid aspects of the matter having not been properly considered by the learned court, the conviction of the appellants under section 307 IPC cannot be sustained.
39. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, the appellants are acquitted from the charge under Section 307 of IPC giving them the benefit of doubt.
Offence under section 341 I.P.C.
40. So far as the offence under Section 341 of IPC is concerned, this Court finds that the witnesses have supported the fact that the appellants caught hold the Informant and assaulted him and as a result of which, he could not free himself from the clutches of the appellants. As such, the Informant was wrongfully restrained by the appellants and he could not proceed in any direction in which he had the right to proceed. As such, the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 341 of IPC are well proved against the appellants. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 341 of IPC.
41. This Court further finds that the appellants have already remained in custody from 08.01.2003 to 19.02.2003 during investigation and trial of the case and from 12.06.2009 to 02.07.2009 after their conviction and during pendency of this appeal before this Court and they have faced the rigors of the criminal case since the year 2002 i.e. for 23 years and they have no criminal antecedent as per the submissions recorded in the order of sentence passed by the learned trial court and as per the records of the case. At present, the appellants are aged about 64 years and 42 years respectively.
42. In the aforesaid view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be served, if the sentences of the appellants are limited to the period already undergone by them. Accordingly, the sentence of the appellants for the offences under Sections 323/34 IPC is limited to the period already undergone by them in judicial custody with fine 19 2026:JHHC:9639 of Rs. 1,000/- to be deposited within 3 months from today and in case of default in deposit of fine amount, the appellants would undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 month. The fine amount if deposited is directed to be remitted to the informant/victim upon due identification. On account of non-deposit of fine amount, the learned court is directed to take appropriate steps so that the appellants serve the default sentence.
43. The sentence imposed under section 341 IPC is limited to the period already undergone in judicial custody.
44. Summary -
Conviction by trial court Judgement of this court 307/34 IPC Acquittal giving benefit of doubt.
341/34 IPC Conviction upheld and sentence is limited to the period already undergone in judicial custody.
325/34 IPC Conviction modified under section 323/34 IPC and sentence is confined to the period already undergone in judicial custody with fine of Rs.1,000/- to be deposited within 3 months with default sentence of one-month rigorous imprisonment.
45. This appeal is accordingly disposed of.
46. Let the Original Records of the case be transmitted to the court concerned forthwith.
47. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
48. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through 'e-mail/FAX'.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 06.04.2026 Uploaded On: 06.04.2026 Mukul/-
20