Jharkhand High Court
Raghunath Das Son Of Late Maunu Das vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 January, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.A(SJ) No.1246 of 2007
Raghunath Das Son of Late Maunu Das, Resident of Hetlapit,
P.S. Giridih(M), District Giridih.
... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
... Respondent
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Amicus Curiae
For the State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, Addl. P.P.
------
PRESENT
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
Dated- 24.01.2025
By Court:- Heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, learned amicus curiae
appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. Bishambhar Shastri,
learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State.
2. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 06.09.2007 passed by
learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in Sessions
Trial No. 46 of 2003 (G.R. Case No.323 of 2001), whereby and
whereunder the appellant has been convicted for offences
under Sections 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for six
months and further convicted under Section 307 of the I.P.C.
Cr.A(SJ) No.1246 of 2007 Page | 1
and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years. Both the
sentences are directed to run concurrently.
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on
24.02.2001 at 7:00 P.M., the informant's husband, Benu Das, as
soon as he returned home from the market then an unknown
person threw a stone into his house, upon stepping outside,
he saw the accused Raghunath Das (appellant) and inquired
about the incident. This led to a verbal altercation, during
which Raghunath Das instructed his wife to bring an iron rod.
After receiving the rod, the appellant struck Benu Das on the
head with an intention to kill him, causing severe injuries that
rendered him unconscious due to excessive bleeding.
Subsequently, Kunti Devi, who was present on the spot,
intervened and snatched the rod from Raghunath Das.
On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant Chandrika
Devi (P.W.4), Giridih(M) P.S. Case No. 66 of 2001 was
instituted for the offences under Sections 324/307/34 of the
I.P.C.
4. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was
submitted against the appellant for the offences under
Sections 324/307/34 of the I.P.C. Charges were framed
against the appellant for the offence under Section 323/34 and
307 of the I.P.C. which were read over and explained to him
for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In the course of trial, altogether six witnesses were
examined and several documentary evidence were also
adduced by the prosecution.
6. The learned Trial Court after considering the oral as
well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution
and after hearing the parties found the appellant guilty for the
offences under Sections 323/34 and 307 of the I.P.C. and
sentenced him as aforesaid.
7. Learned amicus curiae appearing for the appellant
submits that the appellant has been convicted for the offence
under Section 307 of the I.P.C. without any cogent and reliable
evidence. The injury sustained by the injured person, as per
opinion of the Medical Officer (P.W.6) was simple in nature
caused by hard and blunt substance and not dangerous to life
which falls under Section 323 of the I.P.C. The appellant has
remained in custody about six months during trial of the case
and has sufficiently been punished for his guilt. Therefore,
conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence under
Section 307 of the I.P.C. is liable to be set aside and this appeal
Cr.A(SJ) No.1246 of 2007 Page | 3
may be allowed with modification in sentence to the
imprisonment already undergone.
8. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the
aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and
defending the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence
has submitted that there was injury on skull which is vital
part of the body, therefore, mere nature of injury is not to be
looked into, rather it is the intention of the appellant to kill the
injured person is required to be taken into consideration and
the same has been rightly taken into consideration by the Trial
Court. Hence, this appeal is devoid of merit and fit to be
dismissed.
9. I have gone through the record of the case along with
impugned judgment and order in light of the contentions
raised on behalf of the parties. It appears that the sole injured
is P.W.1 viz. Benu Das who has supported the prosecution
case and deposed that after the altercation with Raghunath
Das (appellant), the appellant gave a rod blow on his head as
a result of which became unconscious and fell down.
In his cross-examination, he has specifically deposed
that the appellant gave only one rod blow on his head. He has
Cr.A(SJ) No.1246 of 2007 Page | 4
further deposed that wife of the appellant Raghunath Das hit
him with stone on his back and he became unconscious.
The testimony of P.W.1 is further corroborated by P.W.6 Dr.
Vishwanath who has found following injuries on the sole
injured:
(i) lacerated wound 3" x ¼" x muscle deep, red in colour
on right side interior portion of skull.
(ii) tenderness and swelling on left side back.
Both injuries are opined to be simple in nature caused by hard
and blunt substance.
10. The circumstances under which the occurrence is
alleged to have taken place and the nature of injury sustained
by the injured clearly goes to show that it was simple injury
attracting the offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C. The
required intention and knowledge to constitute the offence
under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is absolutely lacking in this
case.
11. In view of above, conviction and sentence of appellant
for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is hereby set
aside. So far offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C. is
concerned, the appellant had already undergone
imprisonment about six months during pendency of the trial.
Cr.A(SJ) No.1246 of 2007 Page | 5
Therefore, in my considered view, he has sufficiently been
punished for his guilt. Accordingly, this appeal is partly
allowed.
12. Appellant is on bail, as such, he shall be discharged
from the liability of bail bond and sureties shall also be
discharged.
13. Considering the proper assistance of learned amicus
curiae in disposal of this case, we direct the Jharkhand High
Court Legal Services Committee to pay remuneration of
Rs.2,500/- to Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, the learned amicus curiae.
14. Pending I.A., if any stands disposed of.
15. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record
be sent to the concerned Court forthwith for information and
needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Sachin
