Jharkhand High Court
Damu Sundi @ Budha Sundi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 November, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.758 of 2023
....
Damu Sundi @ Budha Sundi, aged about 60 years, son of Late
Laukan Sundi, resident of village-Gundiposi, Tola-Hatbasa, P.O &
P.S.-Tonto, District-West Singhbhum
......Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ......Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam, APP
......
th
Order No.07/10 November 2025
I.A. No.14361 of 2025
1. This Criminal Appeal (SJ) has been filed on behalf of the
appellant by challenging the judgment and sentence dated
08.02.2023 passed in Sessions Trial Case No.219/2019 by Sri
Vishwa Nath Shukla, then learned Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in
connection with Tonto P.S. Case No.12/19 by which the appellant
has been convicted for the offence under Section 308 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo S.I. for five (05) years.
However, the learned Sessions Judge, Chaibasa has
acquitted the another accused person namely Nanika Sundi of the
charges under Section 307 of IPC.
2. I.A. No.14361 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the
appellant for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP
for the State.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
impugned judgment and sentence passed by the learned Court
below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in eye of law. It is
submitted that the appellant is innocent and has not committed any
offence. It is submitted that this is a case of single blow on the
head of the Informant and the injury on the Informant is found
simple in nature by the Doctor and this is a case for the offence
under Section 308 of IPC. It is submitted that the injured PW-2
namely Burju Godsera has admitted during his evidence at para-4
and para-19 that the relationship between the appellant and the
Informant are good now and he does not want to proceed further
with the case. It is submitted that the appellant was in custody
during trial from 24.05.2019 to 19.07.2019 i.e. for around two
months. Thereafter, he is in custody after passing the impugned
judgment and sentence from 25.01.2023 i.e. for a total of more
than two (02) years and ten (10) months out of S.I. for five (05)
years and hence he may be enlarged on bail.
5. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer of
bail of the appellant and has submitted that the there is a direct
allegation against the appellant for committing assault upon the
head of the Informant and also assaulting his wife. It is submitted
that the prosecution witnesses PW-2 i.e. the Informant has fully
supported his case during his examination-in-chief. It is submitted
that the PW-3 is the wife of the injured-Informant namely Rise
Godsera and she has supported the prosecution case. It is submitted
that the PW-1 is the Doctor who had found injury on the
injured-informant and hence the prayer of bail of the appellant may
be rejected.
6. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and from
perusal of the records of this case, it appears that the appellant is
alleged to have assaulted the injured-Informant and his wife on
10.04.2019.
7. It appears that the learned Trial Court has acquitted the
wife of the appellant Nanika Sundi for the offence under Section
307 of IPC.
However, the learned Trial Court has convicted the
appellant for the offence under Section 308 of IPC and but
acquitted him for the offence under Section 307 of IPC.
8. From perusal of the evidence of PW-1 i.e. the Dr. Md.
Imtiyaz, it appears that the injured-Informant had sustained one
injury on his head which is as follows:-
He is injured by contusion with head injury on
11.04.2019. He sustained a lesion and found with one
deep cut mark on the scalp which is 2" in size.
The above injury of the injured-injured was found simple
in nature by the Doctor.
9. From perusal of the evidence of Informant examined as
PW-2, it appears that the relationship between the parties are good
now and he does not want to proceed further this case.
10. It appears that the appellant was in custody for two
months during trial and is in custody since 25.01.2023.
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and
also considering the custody of the appellant, the appellant namely
Damu Sundi @ Budha Sundi is directed to be released on bail, on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- with two sureties of the like
amount each, to the satisfaction Sri Vishwa Nath Shukla, then
learned Sessions Judge, Chaibasa or his Successor Court in
connection with Sessions Trial Case No.219/2019, Tonto P.S. Case
No.12/2019.
12. Thus, I.A. No.14361 of 2025 is allowed and stands
disposed of.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Dated :- 10th November 2025
Nishant/-
