Kali Sahu Vs The State Of Jharkhand

¶1

2026:JHHC:20453

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1359 of 2016

¶3

------

¶4

Kali Sahu, S/o Late Laxman Sahu, R/o Village-Kathaitkura, P.O.Karanj, P.S.-Bharno, Dist.-Gumla

¶5

… .... …. Petitioner

¶6

Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party For the Petitioner : Mr. Baleshwar Yadav, Advocate For the State : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, A.P.P. ----------PRESENT

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORDERS

¶8

----------

¶9

Dated:09^th July, 2026 By Court:-

¶10

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶11

learned APP appearing for the State.

¶12

The instant criminal revision is preferred against the judgment dated 26^th August, 2016 passed in Cr. Appeal No.28 of 2014 by the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla, whereby and whereunder, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14.02.2014 in S.T. Case No. 114 of 2006 passed by learned Assistant Sessions Judge-I, Gumla convicting the petitioner to undergo R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs. 1000/- under section 307/34 of the IPC; R.I. for 1 month under Section 341/34 of the IPC, R.I. for 6 months under Section 323/342/34 of the IPC; R.I. for 3 years under Section 387/34 of the IPC and R.I. for 1 year under Section 506/34 of the IPC has been upheld, with default stipulation. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶13

2026:JHHC:20453

¶14

Factual Matrix:-

¶15

The factual matrix giving rise to this case is that on 20.12.2005, when the informant along with his younger brothers were returning home from market, then at about 6:30 PM, when they reached near Karamtanr near the Joriya Village, the present petitioner Kali Sahu along with five other accused persons came from two motorcycles and stopped the informant by abusing and gave a rod blow on his ear resulting in oozing blood from his right ear. These accused persons also forced the informant to sit on his motorcycle and took him to Kathaithkura Village, thereafter, all the accused persons including the petitioner assaulted the informant with Danda and also demanded Rs. 50,000/- as a ransom. It is alleged that the informant was assaulted by Kali Sahu (petitioner) on the instruction of Prabhat Munda who had previous enmity with the informant with regard to construction of a Check Dam and both of them (Informant and Prabhat Munda) were claiming to complete the construction work of this Check Dam being departmental work.

¶16

On the basis of above fardbeyan of Informant, Sisai Bharno P.S. Case No. 138 of 2005 was registered for the offence under Sections 341/342/323/387/506/307/34 of the IPC against the present petitioner and other accused persons.

¶17

After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner and accordingly, cognizance

¶18

Cr. Cr. Rev. No. 1359 of 2016

¶19

2

¶20

2026:JHHC:20453

¶21

was taken and charge for the aforesaid offence was framed against the accused persons, which was read over and explained to them in Hindi to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶22

In the course of trial, altogether 9 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, apart from the documentary evidence.

¶23

On the other hand, no oral evidence has been adduced by the defence apart from one documentary evidence i.e. certified copy of judgment of S.T. Case No. 108 of 2005. The case of defence in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated.

¶24

The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on record held the petitioner guilty for the offence under Sections 323/34, 341/34, 342/34, 307/34, 387/34 and 506/34 of the IPC which was also affirmed by learned Appellate Court.

¶25

Submissions on behalf of petitioner: -

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the concurrent findings recorded by the learned trial Court as well as appellate Court submits that the learned courts below have failed to consider the contradictions in the evidences of the prosecution witnesses and arrived at wrong conclusion. It is further submitted that the Doctor (P.W.-9) has examined the injured persons and found simple injury in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. Therefore, no case is made out

¶27

Cr. Cr. Rev. No. 1359 of 2016

¶28

3

¶29

2026:JHHC:20453

¶30

against the petitioner under Section 307 of the IPC. It is further submitted that the witnesses who have supported the prosecution case are interested witnesses, hence, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the courts below are contrary to law which are liable to be set aside allowing this revision.

¶31

In the alternative, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already undergone 2 years 11 months custody during trial as well as post-conviction and the petitioner has sufficiently been punished for his guilt and since the occurrence is of the year 2005, during these periods, the petitioner has not involved in any other criminal case and leading his peaceful life, lenient view may be taken, so far as sentence of the petitioner is concerned.

¶32

Submissions on behalf of the State

¶33

Per contra, Learned APP has defended the judgment of learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court on merits. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, it is submitted that this case is stale one of the year 2005 and the petitioner has remained in custody for about three years out of five years, hence appropriate order may be passed for the ends of justice.

¶34

: Analysis, reasons and decision

¶35

I have gone through the record of case along with impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court as well as

¶36

Cr. Cr. Rev. No. 1359 of 2016

¶37

4

¶38

2026:JHHC:20453

¶39

trial Court in the light of contentions raised on behalf of respective parties.

¶40

The main argument raised on behalf of the petitioner in this revision is that the conviction under Section 307 of the IPC is not maintainable.

¶41

Before imparting my verdict on the above point, it is pertinent to apprise with the testimony of the prosecution witnesses examined in this case.

¶42

P.W.-1 Shayamlal Ram and P.W.-2 Manoj Lohar has been declared hostile by the prosecution due to having no knowledge about the occurrence.

¶43

P.W.-3 Tuneshwar Ohda the injured has deposed in his testimony that the incident occurred on Tuesday, December 20, 2005. He was returning home from Karanj market after purchasing vegetables. At 6:30 p.m., he reached Karanj crossing. Three men, Sudarshan Sahu, Ghanshyam Lohara, and Chhotu alias Dinesh Singh, were riding a motorcycle from Joreya. They were armed with sticks, guns, pistols, and rods. Seeing him at Karanj crossing, they stopped the motorcycle and told him to go to the market. I replied that I had returned from shopping and would not go. Dinesh @ Chhotu Singh got off the motorcycle, hit this witness on the forehead with the butt of his pistol, and forcefully got this witness sit, He sat on the motorcycle. Ghanshyam Lohara grabbed him from behind. This witness further stated that

¶44

Cr. Cr. Rev. No. 1359 of 2016

¶45

5

¶46

2026:JHHC:20453

¶47

they took him to Kathaitpura, and Dinesh Singh @ Chhotu walked behind him. When they went to the barn, they saw two men standing there, Sukhu Singh and Pradeep Munda, @ Dukhan Munda. Sudarshan Sahu began asking them why they had assaulted his brother. Kali Sahu and Ghanshyam Singh, Shridhan Singh, came from behind, with Malar Oraon sitting in the middle. They tied our hands and feet with a muffler and bound us and Malar with a stick. Kali Sahu began hitting us with a stick, injuring us on both hands, back, and thighs. Sudarshan Sahu pointed a gun at our right ear and left ear by Gaali Sahu. Chhotu @ Dinesh Singh, pointed a gun at our neck and threatened to kill us, which Surat Singh forbade. They beat us severely with a stick and then let us go.

¶48

This witness stated in his cross-examination that he did not go to the police station to report the incident. The police arrived at the village at 6 a.m. the next day. His elder brother, Harinand Ohdar, informed the police of the incident via mobile phone. During cross-examination, this witness also stated that he did not raise a hue and cry because accused persons were holding guns.

¶49

P.W.-4 Malar Uraon the informant in this case, fully supported the incident and stated in his testimony that it occurred on December 20, 2005. He was working as a laborer on a check dam being constructed on the eastern side of the village. On Tuesday, He went to Karanj market and was

¶50

Cr. Cr. Rev. No. 1359 of 2016

¶51

6

¶52

2026:JHHC:20453

¶53

returning after buying vegetables. At around 6:30 p.m., Kali Sahu, Shridhan Singh, and Somnath Singh arrived on a motorcycle near Karamdar on the northern side of the village. Somnath Singh stopped the motorcycle and hit him hard in the right ear with a rod. His right ear was torn. They made him sit on the motorcycle, with Somnath running behind him. They took him to a barn in Kathaitpur village. Kali Sahu asked for fifty thousand rupees. He replied that he is a poor man, where will he get the money?" Upon saying this, they tied his hands behind his back and began beating him. They beat him severely with a stick for 15-20 minutes. He started shooting him in the chest with a gun. This witness further stated in his testimony that they pushed him to Mala Don village, assaulted him lightly there, then let him go, and abused him, threatening to shoot him if he filed a case. This witness further stated that the police arrived at 4 a.m. They picked him up and took him to Bharno police station. He received medical treatment, his statement was recorded at home, after finding correct, he signed on it. Punai Oraon and Tuneshwar Ohdar also signed, which is marked as Exhibits 1, 1/1, and 1/2.

¶54

In cross-examination, this witness stated that he could not give the number of the motorcycle on which he was brought, nor could he reveal whose barn was located near Kathaitpur. He did not explain how the police received the

¶55

Cr. Cr. Rev. No. 1359 of 2016

¶56

7

¶57

2026:JHHC:20453

¶58

information. He stated in his cross-examination that he and Tuneshwar arrived at the police station together. Furthermore, nothing has come to light during the crossexamination that could refute the incident.

¶59

P.W.-5 the informant's younger brother, who has also fully supported the incident. In his testimony, he stated that the incident occurred on December 20, 2005. While returning home from the market in the evening, some extortionists abducted his elder brother, Malar Oraon, from the road. He was also with him. They beat him with a knife. Kali Sahu, Ghanshyam Lohara, Sudarshan Sahu, Dinesh Singh, Somnath Gop, Shridhan Singh, and Surat Singh were also present. All of them had guns but no shots were fired. Malar Oraon and PuneshvarOhdar were beaten with sticks.

¶60

During his cross-examination, nothing came to light that could disprove the incident.

¶61

P.W.-6 Punai Uraon has stated that the incident occurred on December 20, 2005. He was returning from the market at around 6:30 p.m. The incident occurred near Jorya Bazaar Tand. Sridhan assaulted him with a stick. He grabbed Malar and took him to the market. They were accompanied by Kali, Sudarshan, Dinesh, Sukhu, and Somnath.

¶62

During cross-examination, this witness stated that he already knew all the accused persons. He returned home

¶63

Cr. Cr. Rev. No. 1359 of 2016

¶64

8

¶65

2026:JHHC:20453

¶66

from the market. He has further stated that the police did not inquire him.

¶67

P.W.-7 & P.W.-8 are the investigating officers of this case, have submitted the charge sheet against Kali Sahu, Sudarshan Sahu alias Nag, Surat Singh, Ghanshyam Lohara, Chhotu Singh alias Dinesh Kumar Singh under sections 341, 342, 323, 307, 387, 506/34 IPC. P.W.- 7 has identified the handwriting of the statement of the informant of this case Malar Oraon as that of Police Station in-charge Sudhir Kumar Chaudhary and has also identified the signatures of Malar Oraon, Punai Oraon and Puneshvar Ohdar on it which has been marked as Exhibit 2 and the handwriting and signature of the endorsement made on the statement as that of the then Police Station in-charge B.L. Thakur, which is marked as Exhibit 2/A, and identified the handwriting and signature of the formal FIR as belonging to literate constables Shiv Narayan Sahu and Virendra Lal Thakur, which is marked as Exhibit 3. This witness also stated that the investigation of this case was entrusted to Sub-Inspector Paras Nath Paswan. According to the diary, this witness stated that the incident site was located at the village Karanj PCC turn, Chidha Amwa, on a paved road that is angled in an L-shaped curve. This witness identified the boundary of the incident site as the north paved road and a bushy forest, the east-south paved road, the west road and fallow land belonging to

¶68

Cr. Cr. Rev. No. 1359 of 2016

¶69

9

¶70

2026:JHHC:20453

¶71

Puneet Ohdar. This witness identified the second incident site as the unpaved road in front of the Almera market in the village of Karamtad, the boundary of which is the unpaved road and the Karanj tree on the west, the land belonging to Basant Jaiswal on the east, and the land belonging to Khulu Saw on the south. This witness further stated that the investigating officer had previously submitted a charge sheet against Prabhat Munda. In his testimony, he also stated that he received charge of the case from the Station House Officer on March 26, 2006. During cross-examination, he stated that the statement, signatures, endorsements, and formal FIR were not written in his presence. Similarly, P.W. 8 fully supported the incident and described the incident in his testimony in the same manner as P W-7. This witness rerecorded the statements of Tuneshwar Ohdar and Malar, and also recorded the statements of other witnesses: Manoj Lohara, Shyamlal Ram, Punai Oraon, Narayan Lohara, Sukhu Oraon, and Mundla Oraon. Due to his transfer on March 13, 2006, the investigation was handed over to the Station House Officer. The evidence of these two witnesses fully corroborates the incident.

¶72

P.W. 9- Dr. Manoj Kumar Singh has examined both the injured of this case and stated that three wounds were found on the body of the injured Tuneshwar Ohdar, all of which were described as simple. Four wounds were also found on

¶73

Cr. Cr. Rev. No. 1359 of 2016

¶74

10

¶75

2026:JHHC:20453

¶76

the body of the injured Malar Oraon, all of which were simple in nature and were inflicted with a hard and blunt weapon. This witness identified the handwriting and signature on his injury report, which are exhibits 4 and 4/1.

¶77

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jage Ram vs. State of

¶78

Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 366 has laid down some basic ingredients that has to be established for conviction under Section 307 of the IPC. Relevant para 12 of the above judgment is extracted as under:-

¶79

“12. For the purpose of conviction under Section 307 IPC, the prosecution has to establish (i) the intention to commit murder; and (ii) the act done by the accused. The burden is on the prosecution that the accused had attempted to commit the murder of the prosecution witness. Whether the accused person intended to commit murder of another would the and person depend upon facts circumstances of each case. To justify a conviction under Section 307 IPC, it is not essential that fatal injury capable of causing death should have been caused. Although the nature of injury actually caused may be of assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be adduced from other circumstances. The intention of the accused is to be gathered from the circumstances like the nature of the weapon used, words used by the accused at the time of the incident, motive of the accused, parts of the body where the injury was caused and the nature of injury and severity of the blows given, etc.”

¶80

Similarly, the relevant para 7 of the judgment of Hon’ble

¶81

Apex Court in the case of Hari Singh Vs. Sukhbir Singh &

¶82

Ors. (1988) 4 SCC 551 is extracted as under:-

¶83

“7. On the first question as to acquittal of the accused under Section 307/149 IPC, some significant

¶84

Cr. Cr. Rev. No. 1359 of 2016

¶85

11

¶86

2026:JHHC:20453

¶87

aspects may be borne in mind. Under Section 307 IPC 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 that section. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. Without this ingredient being established, there can be no offence of “attempt to murder”. Under Section 307 the intention precedes the act attributed to accused. Therefore, the intention is to be gathered from all circumstances, and not merely from the consequences that ensue. The nature of the weapon used, manner in which it is used, motive for the crime, severity of the blow, the part of the body where the injury is inflicted are some of the factors that may be taken into consideration to determine the intention.”

¶88

In the given factual background, I find that except P.W.-1 and

¶89

P.W.-2, all the prosecution witnesses including Tuneshwar

¶90

Ohdar (Injured Witness-P.W.-3), Malar Uraon (Informantcum-Injured witness) and P.W.-4 have supported the case of the prosecution and it appears that the accused persons including the present petitioner and Somnath Singh has given single rod blow on the right ear of the informant with rod causing blood oozing. It also appears that there is no repeated rod blow inflicted by the present petitioner except demand of Rs. 50,000/- as extortion and due to inability of the informant to pay the same, the informant was set free without inflicting repeated assault. It also appears that the accused persons were armed with Pistol and Rod but the assault given by the accused persons was only a single rod blow which shows lack of intention and knowledge to kill the informant by the

¶91

accused persons including the present petitioner. Therefore,

¶92

Cr. Cr. Rev. No. 1359 of 2016

¶93

12

¶94

2026:JHHC:20453

¶95

the requisite intention and knowledge to constitute offence under Section 307 IPC is absolutely lacking in this case. But at the same time, there is specific allegation of demand of Rs. 50,000/- as a ransom against petitioner and for causing simple injury through iron rod to the informant which finds corroboration from the injury report as well as forcefully taking him on motorcycle to another village where all the accused persons were already there confining another injured witness namely Tuneshwar Ohdar. Therefore, the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Sections 323, 341, 342, 387 and 506 of the IPC except 307 of the IPC is maintained. So far as, sentence of the petitioner is concerned, the maximum sentence imposed for the offence under Section 387 of the IPC by the learned trial Court is three years out of which the petitioner has remained in custody for two years 11 months i.e. about three years, hence the petitioner has sufficiently been punished for the offence as alleged to be happened in the year 2005.

¶96

In result, the petitioner is acquitted from the charge for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC and held guilty for the offence under Section 323, 341, 342, 387 and 506 of the IPC and sentenced to imprisonment already undergone by him.

¶97