Jharkhand High Court
Lakhi Kant Mandal @ Lakhi Ram Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 April, 2025
2025:JHHC:12303
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 885 of 2007
[Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated
12.07.2007, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.
IIIrd, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No. 449 of 2002]
Lakhi Kant Mandal @ Lakhi Ram Mandal, Son of Bhado
Mandal, resident of Village - Nero, Police Station -
Govindpur, District - Dhanbad.
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Mantosh Mandal, Son of Sarathi Mandal, R/o Village -
Nero, P.O. + P.S. - Govindpur, District - Dhanbad.
... ... Respondents
.....
For the Appellant : Mr. Binod Kumar Jha, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mrs. Shweta Singh, A.P.P.
.....
P R E S E N T
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on 05.02.2025 Pronounced on 24.04.2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Present criminal appeal is directed against the judgment
of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.07.2007
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-III,
Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 449 of 2002, whereby
and whereunder, the appellant has been held guilty and
convicted for the offence under Sections 323, 341/34
and 307 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for
six months under Section 323 of I.P.C. and S.I. for one
month under Section 341 of I.P.C. and also undergo R.I.
For seven years along with fine of Rs. 1000/- with
default stipulation. By the same impugned judgment,
two other co-accused namely, Fanindra Nath Mandal
2025:JHHC:12303
and Simanto Mandal have also been held guilty under
Section 341, 323/34 of I.P.C. but they were released
after due admonition under Section 360(3) of Cr.P.C.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on
09.08.2001 at about 7:00 A.M., the present appellant
along with co-accused namely, Fanindra Nath Mandal,
Asit Mandal and Simanto Mandal came to the house of
the informant armed with lathi, rod and tangi and
uttered filthy language and started assaulted the father
of the informant namely, Sarthi Mandal and on hulla,
when the informant and her mother came to rescue, the
appellant Lakhi Kant Mandal assaulted the informant
on his head and co-convict Fanindra Nath Mandal
assaulted the mother of the informant by rod on her
head and Asit Mandal and Simanto Mandal assaulted
the father of the informant by using tangi and danda.
The reason behind this occurrence as stated in the
fardbeyan that the ox has smashed the paddy crop of
Lakhi Kant Mandal. On the basis of fardbeyan of
informant recorded by S.I. of Govindpur Police Station,
FIR being Govindpur P.S. Case No. 152/2001 dated
09.08.2001 was registered for the offence under
Sections 341, 323, 324 and 307/34 of the I.P.C.
4. After investigation, the charge sheet was submitted
under the aforesaid sections, on which, cognizance was
taken. Thereafter, the case was committed to the court
2025:JHHC:12303
of Sessions for trial. After framing of charge, the
evidence was recorded and statement of the accused
persons was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.,
in which they denied the allegation as alleged. After
conclusion of trial, the appellant has been held guilty
and sentenced as stated above.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant assailing the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence
has submitted that admittedly the dispute arose due to
grazing of field of the appellant by the cattle of the
informant. For the same set of occurrence, there is case
and counter case between the parties. It is also
apparent that scuffle took place in a sudden manner
without any pre-meditation and the injury sustained by
the informant was simple in nature caused by single
blow by iron rod, which is not sufficient to cause death
in ordinary course of nature. Therefore, the ingredients
of Section 307 of the I.P.C. regarding intention and
knowledge is absolutely lacking in this case. Therefore,
at best, offence under Section 324 of the I.P.C. is
attracted in this case, for which, the appellant has
remained in custody for about 04 months.
6. It is submitted that out of seven witnesses examined by
prosecution, P.W.-6 is Doctor and P.W.-7 is formal
witness and out of rest five witnesses, independent
witnesses are P.W.-3 and P.W.4, who have not
supported the case of prosecution and have been
2025:JHHC:12303
declared hostile.
7. It is further submitted that the I.O. of the case has not
been examined which caused serious prejudiced to the
defence of the appellant and the occurrence as alleged,
has happened in the year 2001 and more than two
decades have been elapsed, as such, the appellant has
sustained the rigor of trial for about two decades and
has sufficiently been punished for his guilt. Hence, the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence
of the appellant is liable to be set aside.
8. Per contra, learned APP appearing for the State has
controverted the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf
of the appellant and defended the impugned judgment
of conviction and order of sentence of the appellant and
has submitted that the appellant has given single
blow by rod on the vital part of the body to the injured,
showing his intention / knowledge that the injury
caused by such act is likely to cause death. The injuries
are also opined to be simple in nature by the conducting
Doctor, therefore, this appeal has no merits, which is fit
to be dismissed.
9. I have gone through the record of the case along with
impugned judgment and order in the light of
contentions raised on behalf of both side.
10. It appears that most important witnesses of this case is
the injured victim-cum-informant P.W.-1 namely,
Mantosh Mandal, who has categorically deposed that
2025:JHHC:12303
on 09.08.2001 at about 7:00 A.M., the present appellant
along with co-accused namely, Fanindra Nath Mandal,
Asit Mandal and Simanto Mandal came to the house of
the informant armed with lathi, rod and tangi and
uttered filthy language and on opposition, Sumanto
Mandal has given tangi blow on the head of his father,
due to which, his father fell down and after that, the
appellant and co-accused Asit Mandal has assaulted his
father with rod and lathi. When the informant and her
mother came to rescue, the appellant Lakhi Kant
Mandal assaulted the informant on his head by rod and
co-accused Fanindra Nath Mandal assaulted his mother
by rod on her head, due to which, all of us sustained
injuries.
11. P.W.-2 Anjani Mandal is the mother of the informant
and also one of the victims. She has deposed that on the
date of occurrence, accused Lakhi Kant Mandal, Simant
Mandal, Fanindra Mandal and Asit Mandal came. Asit
Mandal armed with danda, Fanindra Mandal armed
with rod, Simant armed with tangi and Lakhi Kant
armed with rod and assaulted her husband on his head
and they have assaulted to all of us on head. She has
deposed that police did not enquire from her about the
alleged occurrence.
12. P.W.-3 Anand Kumar Mandal has been declared hostile
at the request of prosecution and he has deposed he
was taking bath in the pond and saw that Shefale
2025:JHHC:12303
Mandal was going to throw cow dung and was assaulted
by Mantosh Mandal (P.W.-1) and Sarthi Mandal (P.W.-
5).
13. P.W.-4 Ishwar Mandal has also been declared hostile.
He has also deposed that Shefali came and she was
assaulted by Mantosh and when other persons gathered
there, then Mantosh fled away.
14. P.W.-5 Sarthi Mandal is father of the informant and
also one of the victims. He has deposed in examination
in chief that this occurrence is of before three years and
at that day, he was at his house, then four accused
persons armed with rod, tangi and lathi came there and
when he opposed, then appellant Lakhi Kant Mandal
has assaulted by rod on his head, due to which, his
head has broken and blood oozing out. Further,
Simanto had assaulted by tangi on his head and Asit
had assaulted by lathi on his shoulder and when his
wife and son came to rescue him, accused persons had
also assaulted them.
15. P.W.-6 is the Dr. Digvijay Kumar, who has examined
Mantosh Mandal on 09.08.2001 and found the following
injuries on his person:-
(i) Lacerated wound ¼" x 1/6" x 1/6" on left eyebrow.
(ii) Lacerated wound ½" x ¼" x ¼" on middle portion of
parietal region upper part.
He has opined that all injuries are simple in nature
caused by hard and blunt substance.
2025:JHHC:12303
16. P.W.-7 Dr. Dinesh Prasad Bhandari. This is a formal
witness, who has proved the Injury Report prepared by
Dr. J.N. Singh.
17. From oral testimony of the witnesses, it appears that
scuffle took place between the parties on the minor
issue of grazing of field of appellant by the ox of the
informant. In this case, it is also found that I.O. has not
been examined, which caused prejudiced to the
appellant and the entire material collected during
investigation could not be duly proved, neither the place
of occurrence has been established nor the fardbeyan
has properly been proved, but from the evidence of
witnesses, it is proved that informant's side sustained
injuries, which is simple in nature as opined by the
doctor, thus, the injuries sustained by the P.W.-1 was
not dangerous to life or sufficient to cause death in
ordinary course of nature. Therefore, the essential
ingredients regarding intention and knowledge as
required to constitute offence under Section 307 of the
I.P.C. is absolutely lacking in this case. At best, the case
falls under Section 324 of the I.P.C.
18. In view of aforesaid discussions and reasons, the
conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section
307 of the I.P.C. is altered and modified to Section 324
of the I.P.C. Thus, the appellant is held guilty for the
offence under Sections 324, 341/34 of I.P.C.
2025:JHHC:12303
19. So far sentence of appellant is concerned, in the facts
and circumstances of the case, the imprisonment
already undergone by him appears to be sufficient
punishment for his guilt. Accordingly, the appellant is
sentenced for the period already undergone for the
offence punishable under Section 324, 341/34 of the
I.P.C., for which he is held guilty.
20. In the light of above discussion and reasons, this
appeal is partly allowed, modifying the conviction
and sentence of the appellant as stated above.
21. The appellant is on bail, as such, he is discharged from
the liability of bail bond and sureties is also discharged.
22. Pending I.A., if any, stand disposed of.
23. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court
record be sent back to the court concerned for
information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated, the 24 t h April, 2025.
Sunil / N.A.F.R.
