Jharkhand High Court

Baleshwar Manjhi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 November, 2025

Author: Rajesh Kumar

Bench: Rajesh Kumar

                                                                         2025:JHHC:32958


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 Criminal Appeal (S.J) No.609 of 2007
                                 ----

[Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.05.2007 passed in Sessions Case No300 of 2004, arising out of Ramgarh (Hansdiha) P.S. Case No.107 of 2002, corresponding to G.R Case No.1179 of 2002 by the Court of Sri Alok Kumar Dubey, 5th Addl. Sessions Judge, (F.T.C), Dumka]

1. Baleshwar Manjhi, Son of Lobin Manjhi

2. Upendar Manjhi, Son of Baleshwar Manjhi

3. Fagu Manjhi, Son of Halkhori Manjhi

4. Kailu Manjhi, Son of Babu Manjhi

5. Tikeshwar Manjhi, Son of Fagu Manjhi

6. Kolti Manjhi @ Polti Manjhi, Son of Sanu Manjhi All resident of Sejapahari, P.S Hansdiha, District-Dumka .... .... Appellants

-Versus-

    The State of Jharkhand                              .... .... Respondent
                                       ----
                                  PRESENT
         CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
                                       ----
    For the Appellants               : Mr. Durga Charan Mishra, Adv.
    For the Respondent               : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, APP
                                                             {Through Video Conferencing}
                                            ----
                   rd
    07/Dated: 03 November, 2025

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for

the State.

2. The present Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment

of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.05.2007 passed by the 5th

Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C), Dumka in Sessions Case No.300 of

2004 arising out of Ramgarh (Hansdiha) P.S Case No.107 of 2002, whereby

and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for the offence under

Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and except appellant No.3

namely, Faghu Manjhi they have been directed to undergo rigorous

1 Criminal Appeal (S.J) No.609 of 2007 2025:JHHC:32958

imprisonment for two years each. The appellant No.3 Faghu Manjhi has

been ordered to be released on probation by entering a bond of Rs.2000/-

with sureties of like amount each for one year to appear and in the

meantime, he has been directed to keep peace and be of good behaviour

considering his old age.

3. The criminal law has been put into motion by lodging an F.I.R being

Ramgarh (Hansdiha) P.S Case No.107 of 2002 against the appellants.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on dated 19.12.2002 at about

02:15 P.M fardbeyan of the informant namely, Jagdeo Kunwar was recorded

by Ishwar Paswan, Sub Inspector of Hansdiha Police Station regarding the

occurrence. On 19.12.2002 at about 01:00 P.M. in Jharna Bahiyar in the

field of the informant 's adopted son, accused were tilling and he went to

spread wheat seeds in the same field. Meanwhile, the accused persons armed

with lathi, danda arrived there and started beating them. Baleshwar Manjhi

has assaulted Santosh on his head with danda causing bleeding injury.

However, Tikeshwar and Fagu Manjhi assaulted Kishore with danda.

Upendra and Kailu Manjhi have assaulted the informant namely, Jagdeo

Kunwar with danda and Polti Manjhi has assaulted Dhaneshwar with danda.

On the sound of assault and quarrelling Makali Devi, Shobha Devi, Lalita

Devi and other villagers came there. Then the accused fled away. On

information, an FIR being Ramgarh (Hansdiha) P.S. Case No.107 of 2002

has been instituted under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504/34 of the IPC.

5. The police after investigation has submitted charge-sheet under

Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code against all the

2 Criminal Appeal (S.J) No.609 of 2007 2025:JHHC:32958

named accused upon which cognizance has been taken and the case has been

committed to the Court of Sessions and charge has been framed under

Section 307/34 IPC to which the appellants have pleaded innocence and

claimed to be tried.

6. In the present case, the prosecution has examined altogether eight

witnesses during the trial to prove charges against the appellants, P.W.1

Kishore Kunwar, P.W.2 Shobha Devi, P.W.3 Chansar Kunwar, P.W.4

Makali Devi, P.W.5 Santosh Manjhi, P.W.6 Jagdeo Kunwar, who is the

informant of this case, P.W.7 Kamal Chandra Kunwar and P.W.8 Dr.

Chaudhary Chandra Sekhar Prasad, who is a doctor and examined the

injured witnesses along with the informant.

7. P.W.6 Jagdeo Kunwar, who is the informant and deposed in the Court

that on 19.12.2002, he has given fardbeyan to the Sub Inspector of the

Hansidha Police Station regarding the occurrence. He proved his signature

on the fardbeyan which was Exhibited-1. He stated that accused persons

were tilling in the field of his adopted son and he went to spread wheat seeds

in the same field. He also stated that accused have assaulted him and his

sons namely, Santosh Manjhi (P.W.5) and Kishore Kunwar (P.W.1).

8. P.W.8 Dr. Choudhary Chandra Shekhar Prasad, who is the Medical

Officer in PHC Saraiyahat as on 19.12.2002 and on that day he examined

informant (P.W.6) and his two sons namely, Santosh Manjhi (P.W.5) and

Kishore Kunwar (P.W.1) and also examined Chansar Kunwar (P.W.3). He

deposed that no such injuries on the person of either Jagdeo Kunwar (P.W.6)

or Chansar Kunwar (P.W.3). P.W8 has opined that the injuries on all the

3 Criminal Appeal (S.J) No.609 of 2007 2025:JHHC:32958

injured were simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. Injury

reports are Exhibited as Exts.2 to 2/3 respectively.

9. P.W.1 namely, Kishore Kunwar, P.W.5 namely, Santosh Manjhi and

P.W.6 namely, Jagdeo Kunwar (informant) are the injured victims and their

injuries have been proved by P.W.8 namely, Dr. Chandra Sekhar Prasad.

10. P.W.7 namely, Kamal Chandra Kunwar is the formal witness, who

has proved the fardbeyan Ext.1/1. P.W.2 namely, Shobha Devi, who is the

wife of Chansar Kunwar (P.W.3) and P.W.3 namely, Chansar Kunar, who is

the another son of the informant and P.W.4 namely, Makali Devi, who is the

wife of the informant are not the eye-witnesses, but they were present at the

place of occurrence.

11. In this case, although Investigation Officer has not been examined and

all the witnesses are close family members of victims. No independent

witness examined. But, there is sufficient material to substantiate the fact

that the victims were assaulted while they were doing the field work.

12. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the conviction

under Section 324 /34 of the Indian Penal Code is bad in law as :-

(i) No deadly weapon has been used in the alleged crime.

(ii) There is no grievous injury.

13. It has been further submitted that the ingredients of Section 324 IPC

has not been proved rather at best it is a case under Section 323 of the IPC.

Further, the appellants have remained in custody for about five days and the

incident is of the year 2002 and thus, they have suffered mentally and

financially for a long period.

4 Criminal Appeal (S.J) No.609 of 2007 2025:JHHC:32958

14. On the basis of above, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for

the appellant that the order of conviction may be converted into Section 323

IPC and further, sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone

by the appellants as there is a land dispute between the parties and due to

which, there was scuffle between the parties. There is case and counter case

also.

15. Learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence and it has been submitted that there is

material to suggest that the victim party has been assaulted and they have

sustained injury also.

16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal the

records, it appears that:-

(i) Although, charge has been framed under Section 307/34 IPC, but

the order of conviction is under Section 324 IPC.

(ii) Though ingredients of Section 324 IPC is not available, as no

deadly weapon has been used in the crime rather only lathi has been

used which is a common thing held in the hand of every villagers.