Jharkhand High Court
Hem Narayan Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 August, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:25116-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.158 of 2003
[Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
21.01.2003 passed by learned 3rd Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Dumka in Session Case Nos.346 of 1984/373 of 2002]
------
1. Hem Narayan Mandal, son of Shri Sitaram Mandal
2. Yogendra Mandal, son of Shri Gopi Mandal
3. Laxmi Narayan Mandal @ Latu Mandal, son of Harihar Mandal
All are residents of village-Bandari, P.S.-Saraiyahat, District-
Dumka .... .... .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
------
For the Appellant s : Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, A P.P.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
------
CAV On 13/08/2025 Pronounce On 25/ 08 /2025
Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. The instant appeal was preferred by seven appellants out of
them, original appellants, Sitaram Mandal, Gopi Mandal,
Harihar Mandal and Jethu Mandal had died during pendency
of this appeal and their appeal has been abated vide order
dated 24.04.2025.
2. This appeal is preferred for setting aside the judgment of
conviction and sentence of the appellants dated 21.01.2003
passed by learned 3rd Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Dumka in Session Case Nos.346 of 1984/373 of 2002, whereby
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:25116-DB
and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for the
offences under Sections 302/149 of Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to undergo R.I. of life and the appellants have
further been held guilty for the offences under Sections 147
and 323 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. of
6 months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. We have already heard the arguments of Mr. Jitendra Tripathi,
learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Pankaj Kumar
Mishra, learned A.P.P. for the State.
FACTUAL MATRIX
4. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that in the morning
at 7-8 AM on 10.10.1979, the informant was ploughing his field
along with his brother Dhani Mandal and nephew Kailash
Mandal, meanwhile, accused, Shiv Charan Mandal and Ram
Das Mandal had come along with other accused persons.
Accused Shiv Charan Mandal was armed with axe and other
accused persons were armed with lathi. They intervened the
informant party, thereafter, the scuffle took place and accused
Shiv Charan Mandal assaulted the informant and his brother
with axe and the rest of accused persons brutally assaulted
both of them with lathi as a result of which Dhani Mandal
sustained serious injuries and fell down being unconscious.
Again his body was pressed by bamboo stick. It is further
alleged that hearing hullah, the villagers arrived at the place of
occurrence and injured persons were brought to hospital. The
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:25116-DB
motive for occurrence is alleged that the father of the
informant and father of Ramchandra had exchanged some
land but after some days, Ramchandra had taken back his land
from the informant but Ramchandra did not give the land to
informant party of his own which was received by him in
exchange rather it was sold to the accused Shiv Charan
Mandal. A panchyati was also held in this connection but the
accused persons did not honor the decision of the panchyati
and in course of taking possession of P.O. land by the
prosecution party, the alleged occurrence took place.
On the basis of above fardbayan of the informant,
Gobardhan Mandal (P.W.1) recorded by S.I. P.N. Tigga on
10.10.1979 at Sariyahat State Dispensary, FIR was registered for
the offences under sections 147, 148, 323, 324 and 307 of Indian
Penal Code. In course of investigation, the injured Dhani
Mandal died and the case was converted under section 302 of
IPC also. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was
submitted against the accused persons for the offences under
sections 147, 148, 447, 323, 302, 324 and 307 of Indian Penal
Code.
Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of
the offences and committed the case to the court of Sessions
where aforesaid session case was registered. The accused
persons did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence,
charges were framed against them and trial proceeds.
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:25116-DB
5. In course of trial altogether, 8 witnesses have been examined
by the prosecution namely:
P.W.1 Gobardhan Mandal(Informant)
P.W.2-Tapeshwari Devi
P.W.3-Ajola Devi
P.W.4-Upendra Mandal
P.W.5-Dasrath Mandal (Tender witness)
P.W.6-Jagdish Mandal
P.W.7-Dr. C.C. Sinha
P.W.8-Gora Oraon (Formal witness)
6. Apart from oral evidence the prosecution has adduced the
following documentary evidence, which are as under:-
Ext.-1- Post-mortem Report.
Ext.2-Fardbeyan
Ext.3-Formal FIR
7. On the other hand, no oral evidence has been adduced by the
defence but one documentary evidence has been adduced,
which is certified copy of order dated 01.11.1983 at R.E. Case
No.36 of 1980-81, which is marked as Ext.A. The case of the
defence is denial from occurrence and false implication due to
land dispute. Learned trial court after scrutinizing the
evidence available on record held the appellants guilty and
sentenced as stated above, which has been assailed in this
appeal.
Submission of learned counsel for appellants
8. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that P.W.1,
P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 are interested witnesses and admitted
in their evidence that for the same occurrence, counter FIR has
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:25116-DB
been lodged by accused, Shiv Charan Mandal, which indicates
that both parties scuffled with each other.
It is further submitted that as per the evidence of
alleged eye-witnesses of the occurrence, there is specific
allegation of assaulting the deceased and the informant by
using axe and other weapons by Shiv Charan Mandal, Ramdas
Mandal and Jetthu Mandal, who all have been died during
pendency of this appeal. The present appellants have no
concern with the dispute between informant and the main
assailants and they do not belong to their family members.
There was no land dispute between the present appellants and
the informant party.
Learned trial court has not recorded any findings as
regards to presence and participation of the present appellants
in the alleged occurrence with any common object along with
other co-accused persons in prosecution of which the
occurrence took place.
It is further submitted that one of the eye-witnesses,
Kailash Mandal, who was forcibly ploughing the field at the
behest of informant, has not been examined. It is further
submitted that in the entire impugned judgment, no role of the
appellants have been found but they have been dragged in this
case with aid of Section 149 of IPC without any proof of
foundational facts like any common object of appellants along
with other co-accused persons or any interest in the disputed
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:25116-DB
property. Therefore, conviction and sentence of the appellants
is liable to be set aside, allowing this appeal.
Submission of learned counsel for State
9. On the other hand, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned A.P.P.
appearing for the State controverted the aforesaid points of
argument raised on behalf of the appellants and has submitted
that the trial court has very wisely and aptly apprised and
appreciated and scrutinized the evidence available on record
and found sufficient evidence against the appellants, who have
acted in prosecution of their common object to dispossess the
informant party from their land and putting obstruction in
ploughing and also cause death of one Dhani Ram Mandal,
therefore, there is no merits in the points of argument raised
on behalf of the appellants. This appeal is devoid of merits and
fit to be dismissed.
10. The only point for determination in this appeal is that as to
whether the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence of the appellants suffers from any error of law, calling
for any interference in this appeal.
Analysis, Decision and Reasons
11. We have gone through the record of the case along with the
impugned judgment in the light of contentions raised on
behalf of the respective parties.
12. For better appreciation of the case, we have to apprise with the
evidence adduced by the prosecution.
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:25116-DB
P.W.1-Gobardhan Mandal is the informant himself.
According to his evidence, he along with his men was
ploughing the land pertaining to Plot No. 1493, meanwhile, the
accused persons came there armed with axe and lathi and
protested the prosecution party from ploughing the field. It is
specifically stated that accused Shiv Charan Mandal was
bearing axe, who assaulted upon Dhani Mandal, due to which
he became unconscious and fell down and later on died.
Accused Ram Das had also assaulted with lathi on the head of
Dhani Mandal.
In his cross-examination, this witness reiterates that 7-8
tangi blows were given to the deceased towards edge side on
head and other parts of the body by accused, Shiv Charan
Mandal. There is no whisper about presence and participation
of other accused persons.
P.W.2, Tapeshwari Mandalin is wife of the deceased,
who is not an eye-witness of the occurrence and she has
simply stated that her husband was assaulted by lathi by
accused persons, Gopi Mandal, Jogendra Mandal and Laddu
Mandal.
In her cross-examination, she has admitted that when
she reached at the place of occurrence, her husband was found
lying on earth under injured condition sustaining injuries
caused by tangi.
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:25116-DB
P.W.3, Ajola Devi is the daughter of the informant,
who is not an eye-witness of the occurrence. According to her
evidence, she reached at the place of occurrence after hearing
hullah and found her father lying in injured condition.
P.W.4-Upendra Mandal also went to the place of
occurrence after hearing hullah and saw that a scuffle was
going on between Shiv Charan Mandal and Dhani Mandal. In
course of scuffle, Jethu Mandal (since deceased) assaulted to
Kailash Mandal by lathi. Shiv Charan Mandal (since deceased)
was having axe in his hand, Sita Ram Mandal, Harihar
Mandal, Jai Narayan Mandal, Laddo Mandal, Ram Das
Mandal and Jogindar Mandal were bearing lathi. He has stated
nothing about the role played by the other accused persons
except accused, Shiv Charan Mandal who gave tangi blows on
the head of the deceased, Dhani Mandal.
P.W.5, Dasrath Mandal has been tendered by the
prosecution.
P.W.6, Jagdish Mandal has been decalred hostile by
the prosecution.
P.W. 7, Dr. Charu Chandra Sinha has conducted
autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and found five
lacerated wounds on the head of the deceased and reddish
brown ecchymosis 3" x 1" in front of chest towards the left side
in lower part 1" and ½" below left nipple. The witness has
opined that all the 5 injuries on head of the deceased were
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:25116-DB
grievous in nature and was enough sufficient for his death and
further opined that all injuries were caused by hard and blunt
substance like lathi and blunt portion of axe. The post-mortem
report of the deceased has been marked as Ext.1.
P.W.8-Gora Oraon is a constable and a formal witness,
who has proved the fardbayan of the informant as Ext.2 and
formal FIR as Ext.3.
13. We have given anxious consideration to the testimony of the
ocular witnesses and found that eye-witnesses, i.e. P.W. 1,
P.W. 2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 examined by the prosecution have
failed to prove any specific overt act and presence of the
present appellants at the place of occurrence with any common
object along with other co-accused persons, who were
assaulting the informant party. It is an admitted case of the
prosecution that the land in question was exchanged by father
of informant and father of Ramchandra and later on by
passage of time, the said Ramchandra had taken back his land
and sold the land of the informant to accused Shiv Charan
Mandal and when the informant party had gone to plough the
same, the scuffle took place in between the informant party
and accused, Shiv Charan Mandal along with other accused,
Ram Das Mandal, who are alleged to have assaulted the
deceased and the informant party with their respective
weapons.
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:25116-DB
14. In the impugned judgment and order, we do not find any
verdict of the trial court regarding the role played by the
present appellants in the alleged occurrence and for what
motive, they assembled with other accused persons against
whom there is direct allegation of assaulting the informant
party. No reason has been pointed out for implication of the
present appellants along with other co-accused persons in the
alleged offence. There is general and omnibus findings of
learned trial court that all the accused persons were held guilty
with aid of section 149 of IPC without any discussion as to
what was the common object of the present appellants and as
to whether they have acted in prosecution of any common
object as defines under section 141 of IPC. Therefore,
conviction and sentence of the appellants appears to be
absolutely not warranted under law on the basis of evidence
available on record. Therefore, we are constrained to hold that
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the
appellants is absolutely illegal and beyond the weight of
evidence available on record, which is liable to be set aside.
15. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence of the
appellants dated 21.01.2003 passed by learned 3rd Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Dumka in Session Case No.346 of
1984/373 of 2002 is hereby set aside and this appeal is allowed.
16. The above appellants are acquitted from the charges levelled
against them and set at liberty forthwith.
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:25116-DB
17. The appellants are on bail, hence, they are discharged from
liability of bail bond. The sureties are also discharged.
18. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly.
19. Let the copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records
be sent back for information and needful.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi
Date: 25/08/2025
Pappu/- N.A.F.R.
