Anit Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

2026:JHHC:16263

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 88 of 2019

-----

[ Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 08.01.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No. 732 of 2011 arising out of Tatisilway P.S. Case No. 65 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 5223 of 2011 by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII-cum-Special Judge, CBI(AHD) -cum- Spl. Court (CAW), Ranchi]

¶5

Anit Munda, s/o Late Babulal Munda, aged about 38 years, r/o Haratu, PO & PS Tatisilway, District Ranchi

¶6

--- --- Appellant

¶7

Versus The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent ….... For the Appellant : Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P.

¶8

PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶9

J U D G M E N T

¶10

By Court

¶11

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Spl.P.P. representing the State.

¶12

2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 08.01.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No. 732 of 2011 arising out of Tatisilway P.S. Case No. 65 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 5223 of 2011 by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII-cum-Special Judge, CBI(AHD) -cum- Spl. Court (CAW), Ranchi, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three (3) years.

¶13

3 . The criminal law has been put into motion on lodging written report by the informant namely Pushpa Devi on 18.10.2011 before the Officer-In-charge of the Tatisilway Police Station being Tatisilway P.S. Case No.65 of 2011.

¶14

The brief story as per the prosecution is that the informant, Pushpa Devi, who is the injured, was married to the appellant Anit

¶15

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 88 of 2019

¶16

1

¶17

2026:JHHC:16263

¶18

Munda on 15.07.2008 and thereafter in her matrimonial house she gave birth to a female child. It is further alleged that the appellant developed illicit relation with one Gola Prita Miskel. When she opposed the illicit relationship, her husband assaulted her. The matter was brought before the panchayat on 16.03.2011 where the matter was compromised. On 16.10.2011 the appellant assaulted her badly on her eyes, nose, head, chest and back and therefore the case was lodged by the informant.

¶19

4. On the basis of the written report, Tatisilway P.S. Case No. 65 of 2011 dated 18.10.2011 was registered under Section 498(A)/307 of the IPC. After investigation the charge-sheet was submitted under Section 498(A)/307/323 of the IPC.

¶20

5. The charge was framed and explained to the accused vide order dated 12.03.2012 for the offence punishable under Section 307/323 of the IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶21

6. To substantiate the prosecution story altogether five prosecution witnesses have been examined. Their brief statements are as follows:

¶22

I. P.W.1(Lalki Devi) – She has deposed that that her son was married with Pushpa Devi. There was not good conjugal relationship between them. She has deposed in her cross examination that no quarrel took place in her presence.

¶23

II. P.W.2(Pushpa Devi) – She is the informant and wife of the accused. She has deposed that on 16.10.2011 at about 7.30 P.M. she was present in her matrimonial house with her mother-in-law Lalki Devi. Her husband Anit Munda came and started assaulting her. She fled away to the other room. She informed her father and elder sister. Her sister Soni came to her house and saw her injury. She informed Mukhiya of the village who told her to contact the police station. She came to police station from where she was sent to Hospital for treatment. Thereafter the case was lodged. She was married with the accused Anit Munda and out of her wedlock a female child was born. In her cross

¶24

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 88 of 2019

¶25

2

¶26

2026:JHHC:16263

¶27

examination she has stated that her husband has two houses situated at Haratu. The neighbours are Ratan Johar and elder brother of her husband. The mukhiya of village is Nutan Pahan. The accused is employed in Usha Martin. Her mother-in-law was present at the time of assault. Her husband assaulted her while he was drunken.

¶28

III. P.W.3(Soni Devi) – She has deposed that the informant is her younger sister. She has supported the prosecution story and reiterated the incident narrated by her sister. In her cross examination she has stated that when her sister was assaulted, she was not present there. She received telephonic call from her sister on the next day.

¶29

IV. P.W.4(Suraj Koriyar) – He has deposed that informant is his sister. He has also reiterated the statement made in the F.I.R and as deposed by his sister-informant. In his cross examination he has stated that at the time of occurrence he was present at Namkum. After occurrence the informant went to the house of his elder sister. After the occurrence his sister spent a week in the house of the accused.

¶30

V. P.W.5(Dr.Jayness Tiga )- He is the doctor who has examined the informant and found the following:

¶31

I. A linear abrasion 1 inch long over nasal bridge, blackish red in colour.

¶32

II. Periorbital area of both right and left eye swollen, skin blackish red in colour.

¶33

III. Complaint of pain on whole body.

¶34

IV. Complaint of pain on left arm but there is no internal or external sign of injury.

¶35

V. Complaint of pain in left side of breast but there is no internal or external sign of injury.

¶36

VI. Complaint of pain in whole left side of body but there is no internal or external sign of injury.

¶37

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 88 of 2019

¶38

3

¶39

2026:JHHC:16263

¶40

Time of injury more than 6.00 hours, caused by hard and blunt object like lathi danda.

¶41

Opinion :- Nature of injury is simple.

¶42

The injury report is written by him and marked as exhibitP.W.5/A. He has deposed in his cross examination that he did not find any injury in or around the neck nor the injured has complaint of any such injury of pain. Linear abrasion can be caused due to simple rubbing also.

¶43

7. After conducting full-fledged trial, the learned Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.

¶44

8. Learned counsel for the appellant, by referring to the above evidences, has submitted that at best it is a case under Section 323 of the IPC and not Section 324 of the IPC as neither the injury is grievous nor dangerous weapon has been used for assault. Referring to the evidence of the doctor, it has been submitted that injury is simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance.

¶45

9. Learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court and has submitted that there is enough material to convict the appellant and the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant, as aforesaid.

¶46

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it appears that:

¶47

a) The assault upon the informant-victim by her husband-accused has been proved by the statement of the victim-P.W.2 and gets corroborated by the medical evidence as well as other witnesses.

¶48

b) Both parties are related by virtue of their marriage and the appellant-accused is the husband and victim is the wife.

¶49

c) The medical evidence suggest that injury is simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance.

¶50

11. In view of the above discussion, this Court has found that conviction of the appellant under Section 324 of the IPC is not sustainable in law rather it should be under Section 323 of the IPC.

¶51

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 88 of 2019

¶52

4

¶53

2026:JHHC:16263

¶54

12. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 08.01.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No. 732 of 2011 arising out of Tatisilway P.S. Case No. 65 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 5223 of 2011 by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VIIcum-Special Judge, CBI(AHD) -cum- Spl. Court (CAW), Ranchi convicting the appellant under Section 324 of the IPC is hereby converted into an offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC.

¶55

13. The State has filed an affidavit annexing the custody report of the appellant which reveals that appellant has remained in custody for 3 months and 16 days till 16.04.2026.

¶56

14. Considering the nature of injury and relationship between the parties and also the fact that incident is of 2011, the order of sentence dated 08.01.2019 is also modified to the extent that upon his conviction under Section 323 of the IPC, now the appellant shall undergo the period, which had already been undergone by him.

¶57

15. With the above modification in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present criminal appeal stands disposed of.

¶58

16. Since, the appellant is already on bail, he is discharged from his liability of the bail bond.

¶59

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶60

A. Mohanty Jharkhand High Court Dated 08^th June, 2026

¶61

Uploaded

¶62

/_/2026