Chakradhar Bauri Vs the State of Jharkhand

2026:JHHC:9989

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.08 of 2019

[ Against the judgment of conviction dated 12.12.2018 and the order of sentence dated 14.12.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge-F.T.C. Bokaro in Sessions Trial No.178 of 2012 ]

¶5

¶6

Chakradhar Bauri aged about 40 years s/o Late Ratan Bauri

¶7

Shobha Ram Bauri aged about 60 years s/o Late Ratan Bauri

¶8

Radhanath Bauri aged about 35 years s/o Manbhur Bauri.

¶9

All R/o Chukulia Ramdih, P.O.+P.S.- Pindrajora, Dist.-Bokaro (Jharkhand) …. …. Appellant(s)

¶10

Versus

¶11

The State of Jharkhand …. …. Respondent(s)

¶12

¶13

PRESENT

¶14

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶15

---For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Kumar Nilesh, Adv. For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P.

¶16

¶17

By Court:

¶18

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State.

¶19

2. The present appeal has been filed Against the judgment of conviction dated 12.12.2018 and the order of sentence dated 14.12.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge-F.T.C. Bokaro in Sessions Trial No.178 of 2012 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 341, 323 and 506 of the IPC and have been sentenced to undergo one year imprisonment under Section 506/34 IPC, six months imprisonment under Section 323/34 IPC and one month imprisonment 341/34 IPC. All the sentences shall run concurrently.

¶20

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 17.09.2011, the accused persons attempted to throttle the informant; however, she somehow managed to escape. It is further alleged that the accused persons had been threatening the husband of the informant. On the same day, her husband had gone to Chas Market but did not return till late at night. On 18.09.2011, during the course of search, the informant found her husband lying in an unconscious state by the side of the

¶21

2026:JHHC:9989

¶22

road near Village Choura, Jharkhand, having been assaulted. With the help of the villagers, the injured was taken to Muskan Hospital for treatment.

¶23

4. On the basis of the written report of the informant, the present criminal case has been put into motion by lodging an FIR being Pindrajora P.S. Case No.117 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1259 of 2011 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 307, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

5. The police after investigation had filed charge-sheet for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 307, 506 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the trial court had framed charges against the appellant for the offence under Sections 341/34, 307/34, 323/34, 506/34 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code on 28.02.2013, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To substantiate the allegation, altogether nine witnesses have been examined. P.W.1-Karam Chand Bauri & P.W.-2 Sujit Kumar Bauri had deposed that when they came to know that their younger brother namely Dharam Bauri was missing, they started searching him and found he was lying in unconscious state in pool of blood. Thereafter, he was taken to Muskan Hospital and in course of treatment he died. Further, they deposed that on inquiry they came to know that accused persons committed marpit with their brother. These witnesses in cross-examination has stated that the accused persons have committed marpit with their younger brother.

¶25

7. P.W.3-Mritunjay Bauri is the son of deceased Dharam Bauri. He deposed that the accused persons threatened to kill his father and on that day his father went to take some Khhad from Telidih but did not return. In crossexamination this witness stated that he had seen his father in unconscious position.

¶26

8. P.W.4-Manu Devi is the informant of this case and wife of the deceased. She has supported the prosecution case and narrated the occurrence. She also stated that her husband’s treatment was done for a month but he died. In cross-examination she stated that some quarrel was made in between her husband and accused and accused has threatened to kill her husband.

¶27

9. P.W.5 & P.W.6 are the doctors who examined the deceased Dharam Bauri and P.W.7 is also the doctor who conducted post-mortem over the dead body of Dharam Bauri.

¶28

Page | 2

¶29

Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.08 of 2019

¶30

2026:JHHC:9989

¶31

10. P.W.8 Falguni Chand Bhattacharya was a Liasoning Officer at Muskan Hospital and proved the injury report and P.W.9 is Dr. Shahnawaj Anwar who is consultant of Muskan Hospital and also examined the patient. 11. On the other hand, three defence witnesses have been examined on behalf of defence. D.W.1-Mukesh Bauri, D.W.2-Pradip Kumar Bauri & D.W.3Shankar Bauri. All the DWs stated in same version that due to consumption of wine, deceased fell on road.

¶32

12. After concluding the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein the allegations were denied.

¶33

13. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the offence under Section 506 of the IPC is not made out. In this regard, he has referred to the statements of the witnesses, particularly P.W.-1 and P.W.-4 (informant/wife), who have claimed themselves to be eye-witnesses. Their statements clearly suggest that the parties are neighbours and that there was a dispute regarding the cutting of a tree, with the prosecution side insisting on cutting the same, which was being opposed by the present appellants. It has been contended that none of the ingredients of Section 506 IPC are made out, as nothing has come on record to indicate any criminal intimidation beyond the said dispute. The mere demand for cutting the tree and refusal thereof does not constitute an offence under Section 506 IPC.

¶34

14. So far as Sections 323 and 341 IPC are concerned, it has been submitted that this is the first offence of the appellants and they have already remained in custody for more than three months. It is further contended that the court below has wrongly refused to extend the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, and, therefore, a prayer has been made for reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone.

¶35

It has further been submitted that the matter arises out of a neighbourhood dispute, there is no element of criminality involved, and no weapon has been used.

¶36

15. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence. It has been submitted that there is sufficient evidence on record to sustain the conviction under Sections

¶37

Page | 3

¶38

Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.08 of 2019

¶39

2026:JHHC:9989

¶40

323 and 341 IPC. So far as Section 506 IPC is concerned, it has been argued that although the dispute was between neighbours, the same ultimately led to a scuffle.

¶41

16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the records, as well as the discussions made hereinabove, this Court finds that the ingredients of Section 506 IPC are not made out, as is evident from the evaluation of the statements of the witnesses. The dispute between the parties was essentially a neighbourhood dispute relating to the cutting of a tree, where one party was insisting and the other was refusing.

¶42

17. Accordingly, the conviction under Section 506 IPC is hereby set aside. So far as the conviction under Sections 323 and 341 IPC is concerned, the evidence of the witnesses clearly suggests that there was a dispute and that injuries were there. However, this Court finds that the court below has erred in refusing to extend the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to the appellants.

¶43

18. Hence, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 341 & 323 IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge-FTC, Bokaro is upheld. However, they have already served the sentence.

¶44

19. With the aforesaid modification, the present criminal appeal partly stands allowed and disposed of.

¶45

20. The appellant is on bail and as such he is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds.

¶46

21. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

¶47

22. Let the Trial Court Records be sent to the court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this judgment.

¶48

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶49

The Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi Dated: 08^th April, 2026 Amar/NAFR Uploaded on 17.04.2026