Rajaram Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.236 of 2013

[Against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 23.01.2013, passed by Learned Assistant Sessions Judge-II, Seraikella in S.T. case No. 138 of 2004 (Ichagarh P.S. Case No.29 of 2004 & G.R. No.575 of 2004)].

¶4

Rajaram Mahto …. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Respondent

¶5

Versus ….. P R E S E N T

¶6

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶7

….. For the Appellant : Mr. Mahesh Kumar Verma, Advocate Mr. Avilash Kumar, Advocate For the State : Vishwanath Ray, Spl. P.P.

¶8

By Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State.

¶9

1. The instant Criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 23.01.2013, passed by Learned Assistant Sessions Judge-II, Seraikella in S.T. case No. 138 of 2004 (Ichagarh P.S. Case No.29 of 2004 & G.R. No.575 of 2004)], whereby the sole appellant, Rajaram Mahto has been convicted for the offence under Sections 323 and 307 of the Indian Penal.

¶10

2. As per the FIR lodged on 08.08.2004, it is alleged that on 07.08.2004 in the evening at about 6.30 o’clock, a dispute took place between the informant and the appellant/accused as the agricultural field of the appellant had been grazed by the cattle of the informant. When the informant complained about this, it is alleged that the appellant attacked him with an arrow, as a result of which, the father of the informant sustained injury on his chest.

¶11

3. On the basis of the written report of the informant, Ichagarh P.S. Case No.29 of 2004 was registered under Sections 341, 324, 326 & 307 IPC.

¶12

4. Police after investigation found the case to be true and submitted charge-sheet. Thereafter the accused/ appellant was put on trial for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 307 IPC.

¶13

5. Altogether 11 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The seizure list, inquest report and the written report were proved and marked as Exhibits.

¶14

6. The impugned judgment of the conviction and sentence has been assailed on the ground that the offence under Section 307 of the IPC will not at all be made out as the injury report has not been proved and the Doctor has also not been examined, who is said to have examined the injured. The essential ingredients to prove the charge under Section 307 IPC is that there should be some intention to

¶15

1

¶16

cause death which the prosecution has absolutely failed to prove in the present case. Unless and until the injury report is brought on record, the nature of injury cannot be ascertained. It is further argued that as per oral evidence, the incidence took place on spur of the moment and it was a case of single injury caused by arrow. It is submitted that the injury inflicted was superficial in nature and not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

¶17

7.

¶18

It is further argued that there is apparent error in judgment of conviction under major as well as under minor offence. In absence of injury report, the appellant/accused cannot be convicted for offence under Section 307 IPC or even for offence under Section 325 of the IPC.

¶19

8. Learned SPP for the State has defended the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. It is submitted that the FIR has been lodged without any delay and the injured as well as other witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case. 9. In a case where the injury is inflicted on the injured, it is imperative to know the nature of injury caused so as to determine the intention or knowledge of the person who inflicted the said injury. There is ample oral evidence to the effect that the appellant had caused injuries by an arrow, but beyond this there is no evidence to draw an inference that the said injury was attempted to cause death of the injured. In absence of any medical evidence regarding the injury caused, judgement of conviction and sentence under section 307 of the IPC is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside.

¶20

However, in view of the oral evidence, the appellant is convicted under Section 324 of the IPC.

¶21

Having considered the genesis of the offence, age as well as antecedent of the appellant, protracted trial and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence for imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant.

¶22

With the modification in finding and sentence, the instant Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.

¶23

The sureties are discharged from the liability of the bail bonds.

¶24

Let L.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned at once.

¶25

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶26

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 03.04.2024. sandeep/

¶27

2

Rajaram Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajaram Mahto v. the 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

Manoj Kumar Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Naresh Murmu And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Mathur Saha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shamsher Ansari Vs State of Jharkhand

Balram Sahu And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Khoshi Alias Khosi Vs State of Jharkhand