Jageshwar Mondal Vs State of Jharkhand

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 235 of 2012

(Against the judgment of conviction dated 24.01.2012 and order of sentence dated 25.01.2012 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge-I, Jamtara in S.T. No. 102 of 2010)

¶3

¶4

Jageshwar Mondal … …. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … …. Respondent

¶5

P R E S E N T

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶7

----For the Appellant : Mr. Kaushal Kishore Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Someshwar Roy, APP

By Court :

Heard the parties

The judgment of conviction and order of sentence under Sections 307 and 452 of Indian Penal Code is under challenge in the instant appeal.

¶12

As per the FIR, on 03.06.2010 when the informant was sleeping in her house, at around 2 O’clock at night the appellant barged into the house by scaling the boundary wall and gave Chapar (small axe) blow on the head of her husband and when she woke up, she saw the appellant fleeing away.

¶13

On the basis of the written report Karmatar PS Case No. 29/2010 was registered under Section 449, 326, 307 of Indian Penal Code against the appellant. Police on investigation found the case true and submitted charge sheet. After cognizance, charge was framed and the appellant was put on trial under Sections 307 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

Altogether ten witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and the relevant documents including the injury report were adduced into evidence and marked as exhibits. After prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The defence is of innocence but no specific defence has been pleaded.

¶15

Judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been assailed on the ground that in order to prove the case under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, it is necessary for the prosecution to establish that the assailant had requisite intention to cause death. In the present case, as per the injury report, one single blow was inflicted which was simple in nature. On this evidence, it cannot be

¶16

1

¶17

charged that Section 307 of Indian Penal Code is proved.

¶18

Learned counsel for the State has defended the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submitted that the injured has been examined as PW 9 and the informant was examined as PW2 and both have specifically stated that it was the appellant who had committed house trespass and inflicted the blow with Chapar . Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides and the materials on record, I find force in the argument on behalf of the appellant that the injuries do not disclose an intention of causing death and, therefore, the charge under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code is not proved. As per the evidence, only one single blow by Chapar was inflicted and the nature of injury has been opined to be simple in nature. The injury does not disclose any intention to cause death.

¶19

Under the circumstance, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside. However, considering the materials on record, the appellant/accused is convicted for the offence under Sections 324 and 452 of IPC. On the point of sentence, it is submitted that the appellant has already served more than two years of imprisonment. Under the circumstance, the sentence of imprisonment for the period already undergone will meet the ends of justice.

¶20

Cr. Appeal is dismissed with modification in finding and sentence.

¶21

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶22

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, the 10^th April, 2024 NAFR/ AKT/Satayendra

¶23

Uploaded

¶24

2

Jageshwar Mondal v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jageshwar Mondal v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.La Opala Rg Ltd. And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Sandeep Kumar Vs the Union of India And Ors.

Jharkhand State Electricity Bo Vs Jai Prakash Sinha and Ors.

Churaman Mahto and Others Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arjun Mahto Vs State of Jharkhand

Shakeel Ahmad Vs the State of Jharkhand