Shiv Shankar Sao vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 988 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Shiv Shankar Sao vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 June, 2025

Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

                                                         2025:JHHC:14748-DB


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
           Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 886 of 2002

1. Shiv Shankar Sao, son of Late Putkal Sao,
2. Bhim Sao, son of Shiv Shankar Sao,
   Both residents of village-Lasi, P.S.-Ramgarh, District: Hazaribagh
                                                           ... ...Appellants
                                Versus
The State of Jharkhand                                     ... ...Respondent
                                --------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

--------

For the Appellants         : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
For the Respondent         : Mrs. Lily Sahay, APP
                                  --------
Order No. 08/ dated: 09th June, 2025

1. Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the appellants and Mrs.

Lily Sahay, learned APP.

2. The affidavit filed by the State reveals that the appellant No.1 is now

no more. This appeal therefore stands abated so far as the appellant No.1 is

concerned and survives as against the appellant No. 2 who is hereunder

referred to as the appellant.

3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction

and sentence dated 16.11.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,

(Fast Track Court No. 1), Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No. 194 of 1992

whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence

punishable under Section 323 of I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for one year.

4. The prosecution case reveals that on 17.12.1990 the informant along

with his friend Ganesh Prasad had gone to Sukri Garah and as they reached 2025:JHHC:14748-DB the cloth shop, the appellant and Shivshankar Sao armed with lathi came and

started abusing the informant as to why he has lodged several cases against

them. It has been alleged that the appellant had given a lathi blow on the

head of the informant and subsequently when a commotion was raised, the

accused persons fled away towards their houses. It has also been alleged that

several villagers had assembled and one Tepa Karmali was apprehended by

the accused persons and co-accused Shivshankar Sao had assaulted him with

a lathi on his head.

Based on the aforesaid allegations, Ramgarh P.S. 30 of 1990 was instituted

for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 323/34 of the Indian Penal

Code. In course of treatment, the injured Tepa Karmali had died as such

Section 302 of I.P.C. was inserted in the formal F.I.R. against the accused

persons.

5. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under

Section 323, 307, 302/34 I.P.C. and after taking cognizance, the case was

committed to the Court of Sessions Judge where it was registered as S.T No.

194 of 1992. Charge was framed against the accused under Section 302/34

& 323/34 which was read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they

pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution in course of trial has examined 9 witnesses in support

of its case. As we have noted above, the main allegation was levelled against

Shiv Shankar Sao who has been convicted for the offence under Section

302/34 of IPC but during the pendency of this appeal he died which has led

2 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 886 of 2002 2025:JHHC:14748-DB to abatement of his appeal. So far as present appellant is concerned, the

evidence of the witnesses reveal that he had assaulted the informant on his

head with a lathi which resulted in the informant sustaining a simple injury.

Thus, the prosecution has been able to prove the allegation against the

appellant of committing an offence under section 323 IPC. It appears that the

appellant has remained in custody for sometime and the appeal is of the year

1990 and the appellant has faced the rigors of trial for more than three

decades and on consideration of the aforesaid facts we although affirm the

conviction of the appellant under Section 323 IPC but modify the sentence

of the appellant to the period already undergone.

7. This appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid modification in the

sentence imposed upon the appellant.

8. I.A. also stands disposed of.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Arpit/Basant

3 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 886 of 2002