Jharkhand High Court
Against The Judgment Of Conviction ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 November, 2025
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
1
2025:JHHC:33183
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 561 of 2005
[Against the judgment of conviction dated 15.12.2004 and order of sentence
dated 18.12.2004 passed by Shri Uday Narayan Mishra, learned Additional
Sessions Judge-IV, Fast Track Court, Jamtara in Sessions Case No.2 of
2004.]
--------------
Bichu Mahto, son of Late Kodo Mahto, resident of Village-Kala Jharia, Tola-Pandu Nacha, P.S.-Jamtara, District-Jamtara ... ... Appellant Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Kallu Pandit, S/o Late Modi Pandit, Vill+PO-Kala Jharia, P.S.+Dist.-Jamtara ... ... Respondents
--------------
PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
--------------
For the Appellant :Mr. K.K.Mishra, Adv. For the State :Mr. P.K.Chatterjee, Spl. P. P.
--------------
Order No.11/ Dated 06th November, 2025
1. Vide order dated 26.11.2024, notice has been issued to the informant but in spite of valid service of notice, nobody appears on behalf of the informant.
2. Heard Mr. K.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. P.K.Chatterjee, learned Spl. P.P., appearing for the State.
3. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 15.12.2004 and order of sentence dated 18.12.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Fast Track Court, Jamtara in Sessions Case No.2 of 2004, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 323/ 325/ 307 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for eight years with a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 307 of IPC, further R.I. for two years under Section 325 of IPC and R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 323 of IPC. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 561 of 2005 22025:JHHC:33183
4. The criminal law has put into motion by lodging an F.I.R. being Jamtara P.S. Case No.92 of 2000 (G.R. No.219 of 2000), registered under Sections 341/ 324/34 of IPC against the appellant.
5. The F.I.R. has been lodged on the written report of the informant. The brief fact of the case is that on 05.06.2000 at 4.00 P.M. the informant alongwith his brothers Harihar Pandit and Kishori Pandit had gone to his field. In the meantime Bichu Mahto alongwith his wife and two daughters namely Jitu Kumari and Sadhna Kumari came there armed with lathi, tangi, bow and arrow and abused the informant and asked him why he was ploughing the land. Thereupon Bichu Mahto inflicted injury on Kishori Pandit by bow and arrow which hit on his right arm- pit. When the informant went to save him, he was also assaulted by tangi and his another brother Harihar Pandit was assaulted by Lathi and tangi by the daughters and wife of Bichu Mahto.
6. On the basis of said allegation, the police after investigation has submitted the final form under Sections 341/ 323/ 325/34 of IPC and accordingly cognizance has been taken. Charge has been framed under Sections 341, 323/34, 324, 307 and 325 of IPC and the case has been committed to the court of Sessions. On conclusion of trial, the appellant has convicted under Section 323/ 325 and 307 of the IPC to which appellant has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. To substantiate the prosecution story, altogether eleven witnesses have been examined.
P.W.-1 Kishori Pandit, P.W.-2 Haru @ Harihar Pandit, P.W.-3 Choudhary Mahto, P.W.-Kalu Pandit (informant), P.W.-5 Rabindra Mondal, P.W.-6 Arjun Mondal, P.W.-7 Mangal Turi, P.W.-8 Santosh Mukharjee, P.W.-9 Dr. Ramdeo Das, P.W.-10 Rajesh Kumar (I.O.) and P.W.-11 Sunil Bouri (formal).
8. There was two defense witnesses also.
D.W.-1 Dr. Ajay Kumar Ghosh and D.W.-2 Madan Mahato.
9. From the prosecution story and material brought on record, it appears that there was dispute over a piece of land and scuffle has taken place between both the parties. The Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 561 of 2005 3 2025:JHHC:33183 accused has lost his son and the post mortem report conducted upon the son suggest that the death was due to head injury. The daughter of the appellant, namely, Jitu Kumari and Sadhna Kumari have sustained lacerated wound and swelling. The prosecution has also examined P.W.-9, Dr. Ramdev Das and the injury report brought on record also suggest that the weapon used in commission of crime is hard and blunt substance. Thus, both the side has used hard and blunt substance as weapon.
10. On above basis, it has been submitted that the ingredient of Section 307 of IPC is missing and conviction under Section 307 IPC is bad in law.
11. So far as conviction under Section 325 of IPC is concerned, it has been submitted that at best, the conviction should have been under Section 335 of IPC as the appellant's side has suffered death and they have been brutally assaulted.
12. So far as conviction under Section 323 of IPC is concerned, it has been submitted that it should be Section 334 of IPC as the appellant side has sustained more injury, in fact, death has also occurred.
13. On the strength of above fact, it has been submitted that the sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone i.e. around six months.
14. Learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of conviction and submitted that the supplementary report suggest that there was fracture in the finger and technically the injury is grievous in nature and as such the appellant has rightly been convicted under Section 325 of IPC.
15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, it appears that there was a land dispute between the parties. Further, only hard and blunt substance has been used. The injury caused is not life threatening. Further the occurrence is of the year 2000.
16. Considering the nature of dispute and the injury, conviction under Section 307 of IPC is, hereby, set aside. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 15.12.2004 and order of sentence dated 18.12.2004 passed by the learned Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 561 of 2005 4 2025:JHHC:33183 Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Fast Track Court, Jamtara in Sessions Case No.2 of 2004 is, hereby, modified to the extent that Section 325 and Section 323 of IPC are converted to Section 334 and Section 335 of IPC. So far as sentencing part is concerned, it is, hereby, reduced to the period already undergone i.e. around six months.
17. The appellant is on bail and as such he is discharged from the liability of the bail bonds.
18. In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed with the above modification in the sentencing part.
19. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, alongwith the copy of this Judgment.
(Rajesh Kumar, J) Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi Dated 06th November, 2025 Shahid/N.A.F.R./ Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 561 of 2005