Jharkhand High Court
Mani Lal Bhagat vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 November, 2025
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
2025:JHHC:34006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.1029 of 2004
---------
[Against the Judgment of conviction dated 04.06.2004 and
Order of sentence dated 16.06.2004, passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C), Latehar, in Sessions Case
No.404 of 2000 (Arising out of Latehar P.S. Case No.70 of
1998 corresponding to G.R. No.211 of 1998)]
---------
1. Mani Lal Bhagat, S/o Maheshwar Bhagat
2. Gopal Bhagat, S/o Maheshwar Bhagat
3. Manoj Bhagat, S/o Maheshwar Bhagat
4. Rama Bhagat, S/o Maheshwar Bhagat
5. Prem Bhagat, S/o Sri Pankh Raj Bhagat
All resident of Village Komo, P.O. Jalim, P.S. Latehar,
District - Latehar, Jharkhand. ..... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
---------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---------
For the Appellants : Mr. A. K. Trivedi, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, A.P.P
---------
th
Order No.18/ Dated: 13 November, 2025
1. Although the present appeal has been preferred by
seven appellants, but out of which, two appellants have
died, during the pendency of the present appeal. Vide
order dated 22.11.2021, the present criminal appeal stands
abated so far as appellants namely, Mahendra Bhagat and
Rajesh Bhagat are concerned.
Thus, the present appeal survives only with respect to
five appellants, namely, Mani Lal Bhagat, Gopal Bhagat,
Manoj Bhagat, Rama Bhagat and Prem Bhagat.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned
A.P.P
3. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment
-1- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1029 of 2004
2025:JHHC:34006
of conviction dated 04.06.2004 and order of sentence dated
16.06.2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge
(F.T.C), Latehar, in Sessions Case No.404 of 2000, arising
out of Latehar P.S. Case No.70 of 1998 (G.R. No.211 of
1998), whereby the appellants have been convicted for the
offence under Sections 148, 323/149, 325/149 and 307/149
of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and have been directed to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under
Section 148 I.P.C, rigorous imprisonment for one year
under Sections 323/ 149 I.P.C, rigorous imprisonment for
four years under Sections 325/ 149 I.P.C and rigorous
imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.2000/- (Two
thousand) each with default clause under Sections 307/
149 I.P.C. All the sentences were directed to run
concurrently.
4. The criminal law has been put into motion by lodging
an F.I.R being Latehar P.S. Case No.70 of 1998 against the
appellants under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323 & 324 I.PC.
The F.I.R has been lodged on the fardbeyan of informant
namely, Ajay Mochi (P.W.-5). Vide order dated 10.08.1998,
Sections 307, 325 & 326 IPC were added.
The brief facts of the case, as has been disclosed in
the written report dated 06.07.1998 by the informant, Ajay
Mochi, is that while he was ploughing his land along with
his brother Pramod Mochi, then all the accused persons/
appellants came there and restrained them from sowing
seeds in the lands on which the informant objected and told
-2- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1029 of 2004
2025:JHHC:34006
them that the land belongs to them. Then the accused
Maheshwar Bhagat abused them and ordered to assault.
Then all the appellants started assaulting them with lathi,
axe and spear and on commotion when informant's wife
and mother came there, they were also assaulted. The said
occurrence was seen by several co-villagers.
5. On the basis of the said fardbeyan, the police,
instituted the F.I.R and after investigation, has submitted
charge-sheet on 30.09.1998 against seven accused persons
namely, Rama Bhagat, Mani Lal Bhagat, Gopal Bhagat,
Manoj Bhagat, Prem Bhagat, Rajesh Bhagat and Mahendra
Bhagat for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323,
324, 325, 326 & 307 IPC. Upon which cognizance has been
taken and charges has been framed under Sections 147,
148, 307/ 149 I.P.C and the case has been committed to the
court of Sessions to which the appellants have pleaded
innocence and claimed to be tried.
6. For substantiating the prosecution story, altogether
seven witnesses have been examined on behalf of the
prosecution.
7. P.W.-1, Pramod Mochi, is brother of the informant and
an injured witness. He has stated in examination-in-chief
that on the date of occurrence when he was ploughing and
sowing seeds in his field along with the informant, the
accused came there and restrained them from doing so. He
has stated that on the order of the accused Maheshwar
Bhagat, Mani Lal Bhagat assaulted on his head twice with
-3- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1029 of 2004
2025:JHHC:34006
"GANDASA" and Rama Bhagat assaulted on the head of the
informant with an axe and on commotion, when his family
members came there they were also assaulted by all the
accused persons.
In his cross-examination, he has admitted that a case
under Section 144 Cr.P.C has been contested between them
due to the land dispute.
8. P.W.-2, Shyam Bihari Mochi, is the brother of the
informant and has supported the incident. He has stated
that accused Mani Lal Bhagat assaulted Pramod Mochi
with "GANDASA" and accused Rama Bhagat assaulted Ajay
Mochi with "FARSA", Gopal Bhagat assaulted his mother
with "LATHI" and Kausalya Devi also sustained cut injury
on her head. He has further stated that on commotion he
went at the place of occurrence, where accused
Maheshwar was saying to chop and kill the injured persons
and he was ready to spend money whatsoever required.
9. P.W.-3, Kausalya Devi, is the sister-in-law of the
informant and an injured witness. She has supported the
incident and also narrated the same facts, as deposed by
other witnesses.
10. P.W.-4, Dhaneshwari Devi, is the mother of the
informant. She has also suffered injury and the same was
found grievous in nature. She has also supported the
incident.
In her cross-examination, she has denied any previous
land dispute between the parties.
-4- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1029 of 2004
2025:JHHC:34006
11. P.W.-5, Ajay Mochi, is the informant. In his
examination-in-chief, he has stated that on 06.07.1998,
(Monday), at about 07.00 0'clock morning his brother
Pramod Mochi was plaughing the harvest field and he was
plucking the grass etc. there, in the meantime all accused
persons came there and accused Maheshwar Bhagat
abused them and ordered to be killed and thrown as he was
ready to spend money whatsoever required. Then, the
accused Mani Lal Bhagat assaulted Pramod Mochi on his
head twice with "GANDASA", accused Rama Bhagat
assaulted him on his head with "TANGI" and on commotion
when his sister-in-law, Kausalya Devi, Mother, Dhaneshwari
Devi and brother Shyam Bihari came there to save them
then they all were also assaulted by rest of the accused
persons with Lathi due to which they all sustained injuries.
He has denied regarding land dispute between the
parties.
12. P.W.-6, Dr. Ashok Kumar Das, is the doctor who has
examined the injured persons. He has examined the Ajai
Mochi (P.W.-5) and found the following injuries:-
(i) One lacerated wound 1"X1/4"X1/4" over mid of
scalp
(ii) Swelling over the left fore-head.
As per opinion of the Doctor, nature of both injuries
were simple, caused by hard & blunt substance.
He has also examined Kausalya Devi (P.W.-3) and
found one linear bruise over her back. The injury was found
to be simple in nature, caused by hard and blunt substance.
-5- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1029 of 2004
2025:JHHC:34006
He has also examined the injured Dhaneshwari Devi
(P.W.-4) and found the following injury on her person:-
(i) Fracture of ninth and tenth ribs of the right
side of the chest with a swelling at the same side.
As per his opinion, the nature of injury was grievous,
caused by hard-blunt weapon.
He has also examined Pramod Mochi (P.W.-1) and
found the following injuries on his person:-
(i) One incised cut wound 1½"X1/4"X bone deep
situated over front of skull.
(ii) One incised cut wound 2½"X¼"X¼" over
occipital part of scalp.
(iii) One lacerated wound over right wrist.
As per his opinion, nature of injury Nos.(i) and (ii)
'was dangerous to life, hence grievous and caused by
sharp-cutting weapon and nature of injury no.(iii) is simple,
caused by hard-blunt substance.
13. P.W.-7, Ajay Kumar Singh, is an Advocate-Clerk. He is
a formal witness and has proved formal F.I.R and other
exhibits.
14. Further, several documents have been exhibited by
both the parties to suggest that there is land dispute
between the parties. In fact, in cross-examination also,
some of the witnesses have stated that there was land
dispute between the parties and it is the cause of the
present incident.
Ext.-1 to 1/3 i.e. the injury reports. Ext.-2 is the
formal F.I.R. Ext.-3 is the written report of the informant.
Ext.-4 is the case diary. Ext.-5 is the certified copy of
judgment in Misc./ Revenue Case No.03/ 1995-96. Ext.-6 is
-6- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1029 of 2004
2025:JHHC:34006
the Sketch map. Ext.-7 is the certified copy of the
settlement case No.30/68-69. Ext.-8 is the certified copy of
sketch map. Ext.-9 is Parcha and Ext.-10 is the new rent
receipts.
15. The trial Court, after evaluating the evidence and
material available on record, has convicted the appellants
under Section for the offence under Sections 148, 123/149,
325/149 and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code.
16. Referring to the above evidence available on record,
the learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the
judgment of conviction, mainly on the following five
grounds :-
(a) There is no specific allegation of one or other
injury vis-a-vis one or another accused.
(b) no independent witness has been examined.
(c) there is no recovery of any weapon from the
place of occurrence.
(d) there is no forensic evidence regarding the
place of occurrence.
(e) admittedly, there is land dispute between the
parties and as such there is motive for false
implication of the appellants.
On the above grounds, learned counsel for the
appellants has submitted that the conviction of the
appellants is bad in law.
17. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has
supported the judgment of conviction, stating that there is
-7- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1029 of 2004
2025:JHHC:34006
four injured witnesses and they have made specific
allegation that the assault has been made by the unlawful
assembly, consisting of seven accused persons/ appellants.
The injury has been proved by the doctor and the occular
evidence is also there. Thus, no specific allegation is
required as the appellants have been roped in on the basis
of unlawful assembly.
18. The law is settled that every person is responsible for
all the injuries caused by the unlawful assembly. So far as
the materials available on record, there is enough
materials, suggesting the involvement of the appellants in
the crime and as such no interference is required in the
impugned judgment of conviction.
19. Further, so far as the sentencing part is concerned,
neither any mitigating circumstances has been brought on
record nor anything has been placed, warranting any
interference of the same.
20. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
from perusal of the record, it appears that the injured
witness, i.e., P.Ws.- 1, 3, 4 & 5 have clearly stated that the
assault has been made by these appellants after formation
of unlawful assembly. The unlawful assembly has been
formed for using force, for evicting the informant party
from the land in question while they were ploughing it.
Thus, there is evidence, regarding formation of unlawful
assembly and that assembly has caused injury, which has
been substantiated by the medical evidence as well as
-8- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1029 of 2004
2025:JHHC:34006
occular evidence and such the conviction of the appellants
under Sections 148, 123/149, 325/149 of the Indian Penal
Code is fully justified and requires no interference.
21. So far as the conviction of the appellants under
Section 307/ 149 IPC is concerned, the injury Nos.(i) and
(ii) inflicted upon the brother of the informant, i.e., P.W.-1
as has been opined by the doctor (P.W.-6) are grievous in
nature and dangerous to life, caused by sharp-cutting
weapon. The weapon of assault is also sharp-cutting
weapon. Thus, the conviction of the appellants under
Section 307/ 149 IPC also does not warrant any
interference.
So far as the sentencing part is concerned, no
mitigating circumstances has been brought on record
suggesting any interference.
22. Accordingly, I do not find any reason/ material to
interfere with the judgment of conviction dated 04.06.2004
and order of sentence dated 16.06.2004, passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C), Latehar, in Sessions Case
No.404 of 2000, arising out of Latehar P.S. Case No.70 of
1998 (G.R. No.211 of 1998).
23. In the result, the present appeal fails.
24. Since the appellants are on bail, their bail is, hereby,
cancelled. They are directed to surrender in the court
below immediately for serving out rest of the sentence, as
has been imposed by the trial court.
25. The trial court is also directed to take all coercive
-9- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1029 of 2004
2025:JHHC:34006
steps for apprehension of the appellants and to commit
them to jail custody to serve out rest of the sentence, as
awarded to them by the impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence.
26. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court
concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this Judgment.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated, the 13th November, 2025
Ravi-Chandan/- NAFR
Uploaded on 17.11.2025
- 10 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1029 of 2004
