Jharkhand High Court

Mantu Tiwary @ Manoj Tiwary Son Of Vidya ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 November, 2025

Author: Rajesh Kumar

Bench: Rajesh Kumar

                                                          2025:JHHC:34007

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
              Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.1211 of 2004
                          With
              Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.1313 of 2004
                          ---------

[Against the Judgment of conviction dated 06.07.2004 and Order of sentence dated 08.07.2004, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court - IV, Giridih, in Sessions Trial No.267 of 2003 (Arising out of Dhanwar P.S. Case No.13 of 2003, corresponding to G.R No.56 of 2003)]

---------

Mantu Tiwary @ Manoj Tiwary son of Vidya Nand Tiwary, Village - Vishanpur, P.S. Dhanvar, District - Giridih.

..... Appellant [In Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.1211 of 2004]

Ashok Tiwary son of Late Bhim Tiwary, Resident of Village - Bishunpur, P.S.- Dhanwar, District - Giridih.

..... Appellant [In Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.1313 of 2004]

Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent [In both the appeals]

---------

PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---------

For the Appellants : Mr. Vijay Kr. Sharma, Amicus Curiae [In Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.1211 of 2004] : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate [In Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.1313 of 2004] For the State : Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, A.P.P [In Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.1211 of 2004] : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P [In Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.1313 of 2004]

---------

Order No.23/ Dated: 13th November, 2025

1. The captioned appeals arise out of a common judgment,

hence the same have been clubbed and heard together and

disposed of with a common judgment.

2. Heard Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, learned Amicus Curiae

(In Cr. Appeal No.1211/ 2004), Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, learned

counsel for the appellant (In Cr. Appeal No.1313/ 2004) and

Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri & Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, learned

A.P.Ps.

-1- Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos.1211 of 2004 & 1313 of 2004 2025:JHHC:34007

3. Both the appeals have directed against the Judgment of

conviction dated 06.07.2004 and order of sentence dated

08.07.2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Fast Track Court - IV, Giridih, in Sessions Trial No.267 of

2003, arising out of Dhanwar P.S. Case No.13 of 2003,

whereby the appellant namely, Mantu Tiwary has been

convicted for the offence under Sections 341/ 304 of the

Indian Penal Code and has been directed to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.500/- for the

offence under Section 304 IPC and one month simple

imprisonment under Section 341 IPC whereas the appellant

namely, Ashok Tiwari has been convicted for the offence

under Section 341, 323 & 304/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code

and has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

three years with fine of Rs.500/- under Sections 304/ 34 IPC

and one month simple imprisonment under Section 341 IPC.

All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

4. The criminal law has been put into motion by lodging an

F.I.R being Dhanwar P.S. Case No.13 of 2003 against three

persons including the presents appellants under Sections

341/ 323/ 324/ 307/ 34 I.PC. The F.I.R has been lodged on the

fardbeyan of informant namely, Arath Tiwary (since

deceased). Lateron, Section 302 IPC has also been added.

The brief facts of the case, as stated in the F.I.R., is that

on 26.01.2003 at about 05:00 p.m., the informant Arath

Tiwari alongwith Pradeep Tiwari returned to his house from

village Kathwara where they had gone for 'Jajmanika'.

Thereafter, Pradeep Tiwari went to the house of Ashok Tiwari

-2- Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos.1211 of 2004 & 1313 of 2004 2025:JHHC:34007

and Mantu Tiwari and told them to take their share in the

articles receive in 'Jajmanika'. Thereafter, Ashok Tiwari,

Mantu Tiwari and Paramshila Devi (wife of Ashok Tiwari)

came to the house of the informant and showed their

resentment as to why the informant had gone for 'Jajmanika'.

Thereafter, they scattered the things which were received in

'Jajmanika' and went back. After sometime, at about 8:00 p.m.

all the three accused persons again came back. They were

armed with lathi and 'tangi'. They assaulted the informant.

Paramshila Devi pulled his leg by the handle of umbrella due

to which he fell down, Ashok Tiwari brutally assaulted him by

lathi and Mantu Tiwari gave 'tangi' blow on his head with an

intention to kill him. Thereafter, the informant became

senseless and the accused persons fled away. On regaining

his senses, the informant alongwith his family members went

to police station and lodged F.I.R. Later on the informant died

due to the said assault.

5. On the basis of the said fardbeyan, the police, after

investigation, has submitted charge-sheet against three

accused persons. Upon which cognizance has been taken and

charge has been framed against the appellants under Section

341/ 323/ 302/34 IPC and the case has been committed to the

court of Sessions to which the appellants have pleaded

innocence and claimed to be tried.

6. To substantiate the prosecution story, altogether eight

witnesses have been examined.

7. P.W.-1, Dr. Rajesh Kumar, is the doctor, who has

conducted post-mortem over the dead body of the deceased.

-3- Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos.1211 of 2004 & 1313 of 2004 2025:JHHC:34007

All the injuries were found ante-mortem in nature caused by

hard and blunt substance. In cross-examination, he has stated

that the injuries may not be sufficient in ordinary course of

nature to cause death.

8. P.W.-2, Dharamshila Devi, has stated that she does not

know anything about the occurrence. She has been declared

hostile.

9. P.W.-3, Munni Devi, has stated that she does not know

anything about the occurrence. She has also been declared

hostile.

10. P.W.-4, Renu Kumari, has stated that she does not know

anything about the occurrence. She has also been declared

hostile.

11. P.W.-5, Wazir Tiwari, is the father of the deceased/

informant. He has supported the prosecution case. In his

cross-examination, he has stated that in 'Jajmanika', about 5

kg. rice, 3 kg. 'Chuda' and 1kg. potato was received and each

of the parties had got 1/8th share in it.

12. P.W.-6, Most. Kalpana Devi, is wife of the deceased. She

has stated that the accused persons have killed her husband

for rice and chuda received in 'Jajmanika' and has supported

the prosecution story.

13. P.W.-7, Dr. Ramratan Singh, is the doctor, who had

examined the informant, Arath Tiwari after the assault. He

has opined that the injuries were simple in nature, caused by

hard and blunt substance.

14. P.W.-8, Shivpujan Bahelia, is the Investigating Officer,

who has proved the re-statement of the informant, recorded

-4- Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos.1211 of 2004 & 1313 of 2004 2025:JHHC:34007

under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

15. The trial Court, after evaluating the evidence and the

material available on record, has convicted all the three

accused persons including the present appellants by the

impugned judgment.

16. It has been submitted by the learned Amicus and

learned counsel for the appellants that the medical evidence

and the deposition of the doctor clearly suggest that :-

(I) the injury was simple in nature, caused by

hard and blunt substance.

(ii) whether the injury was capable of triggering

death in ordinary course of nature or not, the doctor

is not sure on that point, as has been deposed in the

cross-examination.

(iii) it was a sudden scuffle between the parties

on distribution of the 'Jajmanika' about 5 kgs. rice, 3

kgs. 'Chuda' and 1kg. Potato.

(iv) further, the trial court has not clarified as to

whether the conviction is under Section 304(I) IPC

or 304(II) IPC and as such the sentencing is also

without proper judicial consideration.

On the above basis, it has been submitted that since the

intention and enough knowledge, regarding triggering of

death injury caused, is missing, the appellants cannot be

convicted under Section 304(I) IPC rather they should be

under Section 304(II) IPC.

Further, it has been submitted that there was simple

scuffle between the parties and neither any deadly weapon

-5- Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos.1211 of 2004 & 1313 of 2004 2025:JHHC:34007

has been used nor there is repetition of blow. It was an

unfortunate incident of the year 2003 and the appellant

namely, Mantu Tiwary @ Manoj Tiwary, has remained in

custody for about one year five months fifteen days whereas

the appellant namely, Ashok Tiwary, has remained in custody

for about one year four months fifteen days and as such, the

sentencing part may be reduced to the period already

undergone.

17. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has

supported the judgment of conviction, but has conceded on

the point that the court below has not specified as to whether

the conviction is under Section 304(I) IPC or 304(II) IPC.

18. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on

going through the materials available on record, it appears

that :-

(a) the court below has committed a judicial

error, by not specifying whether the conviction is

under Section 304(I) or 304(II) IPC.

(b) the material brought on record by the

prosecution, is not capable of convicting the

appellants under Section 304(I) IPC as neither

intention has been brought on record nor the injury

caused is sufficient in ordinary course of nature to

cause death.