Ramadha Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 December, 2025

Author: Sanjay Prasad

Bench: Sanjay Prasad

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 Cr. Appeal (S.J.). No. 610 of 2025
                          ....

1. Ramadha Ram, aged about 60 years, son of late Ram Prasad Ram.

2. Bimla Devi @ Bimali Devi @ Vimali Devi, aged about 45 years, wife of Pragas Ram.

3. Pragas Ram, aged about 50 years, son of late Nathun Ram. (All resident of village - Ahipurwa, PO & PS - Nagar Untari, District - Garhwa, Jharkhand - 822121. ... .. Appellants Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. Maitri Devi, wife of Rajendra Ram, resident of village - Ahipurwa, PO & PS - Nagar Untari, District - Garhwa, Jharkhand. ... .. Respondents

-----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

-----

 For the Petitioner       : Mr. Ranjit Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
 For the State            : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, A.P.P.
 For the Informant        : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Pandey, Advocate
                          : Mr. Anurag Kumar, Advocate

Order No. 07/19th December 2025

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant nos. 1 and 3 against appellant no. 2 (already released on bail on 13th October 2025) challenging the judgment of conviction dated 26.06.2025 and sentenced dated 01.07.2025 passed by Sri Manoj Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Sessions Judge - II, Nagar Untari in Sessions Trial No. 332 of 2018 by which the appellant nos. 1 and 3 along with appellant no. 2 have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 307 /34, 323 / 34 and 341 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five (05) years, R.I. for one (01) year and S.I. for one (01) month respectively.

2. I.A. No. 10629 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the appellant nos. 1 and 3 for suspension of suspension of sentence and for grant of bail.

3. It is submitted that the impugned judgment and sentence passed by the learned trial court is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted that allegation against the appellants for assaulting the informant - injured, are false and concocted. It is submitted that both the sides are Gotiyas and there is a land dispute between both the parties. It is further submitted that there is no specific allegation against the appellant no. 1 for assaulting the informant - injured, namely, Matri Devi .i.e., P.W. 7. It is further submitted that independent witnesses i.e., P.W. - 9 has been declared hostile by the prosecution however P.W. - 1, P.W. - 2 and P.W.- 3 have also stated that there is a land dispute between the parties. It is submitted that the appellant nos. 1 and 3 are in custody since 26.06.2025 during trial. Hence, they may be enlarged on bail.

4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer of the appellant nos. 1 and 3 for grant of bail and submitted that there is direct allegation against the appellant nos. 1 and 3 for assaulting the informant - injured i.e., P.W.- 7 [Maitri Devi] and also one Parni Kunwar. It is next submitted that the P.W.- 7 [Maitri Devi] is the informant of this case and she has fully supported the case stating that she has sustained grievous injury on her head which is proved by the doctor i.e., P.W. - 12. It is next submitted that P.W. - 1 [Satyendra Ram], P.W.- 2 [Jairam Paswan] and P.W. - 3 [Ramjanam Ram] have supported the prosecution case and

P.W. - 11 [Anil Mahto] and P.W. - 13 [Shiv Narayan Singh], are the Investigating Officers in this case and they have also supported and corroborated the evidence of P.W. - 7 [Maitri Devi] who is the informant in this case. Hence, the prayer as prayed for in this criminal appeal, may be rejected.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant after adopting the submissions of the learned A.P.P. has further submitted that both the appellants have assaulted P.W. - 6 [Parni Kunwar] and also the informant - injured P.W. - 7 [Maitri Devi]. It is further submitted that the appellant no. 3, namely, Prakash Ram assaulted P.W.- 7 [Maitri Devi] with a spade on head due to which she sustained severe head injuries and became unconscious and she was treated at Government Hospital. It is next submitted that P.W. - 12 [Dr. Shailendra Kumar Verma] Medical Officer, has found grievous injury on the head of the P.W.- 7 [Maitri Devi] which is evident from supplementary injury report marked as Exhibit - P-3. Hence, the prayer for bail for appellant nos. 1 and 3 may be rejected.

6. Perused the Trial Court record and considered the submissions of both sides.

7. It reveals from the FIR that on 29.08.2016, all the appellants were ploughing the field of her mother-in-law Parni Kunwar then she forbade them from doing so. Thereafter, appellant no. 1, namely, Ramdhar Ram also started assaulting her mother-in-law and also appellant no. 1 Ramadhar Ram had climped upon the abdomen of her mother-in-law. When the P.W.- 7 [Maitri Devi] went there to save her then at the instigation of appellant no. 1, appellant no. 3 [Pragas Ram]

assaulted her by spade on her head due to which she sustained cut injury on her head and blood started oozing out.

8. So far as the prosecution evidence is concerned, appellant no. 1 and P.W. -2 have supported the prosecution case and submitted that appellant no. 3 [Pragas Ram] had assaulted P.W. - 3 [Maitri Devi] on her head due to which she sustained head injury.

9. P.W. - 3 [Ramjanam Ram] has also supported the prosecution case but he does not appear to be the witness on the point of specific assault.

10. It transpires that P.W. - 5 [Nagendra @ Nageshwar Ram] and P.W. - 6 [Parni Kunwar] who are other injured, had also stated that the appellant no. 3 [Pragas Ram] assaulted P.W.- 7 [Maitri Devi] on her head even P.W.- 7 [Maitri Devi] has also stated that appellant no. 3 [Pragas Ram] assaulted her by Kudal on her head due to which she became unconscious.

11. Thus, from perusal of the witnesses, it is apparent that there is no specific allegation of assault against appellant no. 1 whereas there is specific allegation of assault against appellant no. 3 [Pragas Ram].

12. Under such circumstances, the prayer for bail of appellant no. 3 [Pragas Ram], is rejected at this stage.

13. So far as the appellant no. 1 is concerned, it is evident from the evidence of the prosecution witness that no specific allegation is attributed against him for assaulting informant - injured i.e., P.WP. - 7 [Maitri Devi] and he is only alleged to have climbed upon the body of the mother-in-law of the

informant.

14. Under such circumstances, the sentence of appellant no. 1 is suspended and appellant no. 1 is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 15000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand Only) with two sureties to the like amount to the satisfaction of Sri Manoj Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Sessions Judge - II, Nagar Untari or/his Successor Court.

15. Thus, I.A. No. 10629 of 2025 is allowed in part and accordingly disposed of.

16. Though the learned trial court has convicted the appellants under Sections 307 /34, 323 / 34 and 341 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for five (05) years, R.I. for one (01) year and S.I. for one (01) month respectively but no compensation under the provisions of Victim Compensation Act has been provided to the victim- injured i.e., P.W. - 7, under such circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner and the Superintendent of Police are directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) to the victim-informant under the provisions of Victim Compensation Scheme and shall submit a report.

17. The learned Member Secretary, JHALSA and Secretary DLSA, Garhwa, are directed to co-ordinate with the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa and Superintendent of Police, Garhwa and shall submit a report.

18. Accordingly, I.A. No. 10629 of 2025 is allowed in part.

(Sanjay Prasad, J.) Dated:- 19.12.2025 Aditi