Jharkhand High Court
Chhatru Rana vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 October, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
(2025:JHHC:31696-DB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1643 of 2004
[Against the judgment of conviction dated 20.03.2004 and order of
sentence dated 22.03.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Court No.8, Hazaribagh in S.T. No.242 of 2003 arising out
of Barkagaon P.S. Case No.87 of 2002 corresponding to G.R. Case
No.2880 of 2002]
------
1. Chhatru Rana, son of Kabal Rana, resident of village-Kharanti,
P.S. Barkagaon, District-Hazaribagh
2. Gobind Rana son of Chhatru Rana, resident of village-Kharanti,
P.S. Barkagaon, District-Hazaribagh
.... .... .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
------
For the Appellants : Mrs. Rashmi Kumar, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl. P.P.
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
------
CAV On 17/09/2025 Pronounce On 14 /10/2025
Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. Heard Mrs. Rashmi Kumar, learned amicus Curiae appearing
for the appellants and Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned counsel
for the State.
2. The instant criminal appeal is preferred by the present
appellants through jail petition while in custody challenging
(2025:JHHC:31696-DB)
their conviction dated 20.03.2004 and order of sentence dated
22.03.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast
Track Court No.8, Hazaribagh in S.T. No.242 of 2003 arising
out of Barkagaon P.S. Case No.87 of 2002 corresponding to
G.R. Case No.2880 of 2002, whereby and whereunder, the
appellants have been held guilty for the offence under Section
302/34 of Indian Penal Code and sentence to undergo R.I for
life along with fine of Rs.500/- each.
Factual Matrix:-
3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on
28.11.2002 at about 11:00 am, the informant, Bindwa Devi
along with her husband Nageshwar Rana were harvesting
their paddy crop. Meanwhile, above appellants armed with
tangi and lathi came to the field and started scuffling with the
husband of the informant and protested against the harvesting
of paddy crops. It is further alleged that Chhatru Rana
assaulted on head of the informant's husband by tangi and
Govind Rana assaulted by means of lathi. The informant's
husband died due to injury sustained by him in the said
occurrence. The informant raised alarm then several villagers
namely Ishwar Prajapati, Ramchandra and Most. Parwa Devi,
who were working in nearby fields, arrived there, then
(2025:JHHC:31696-DB)
accused persons fled away. The informant's husband was
brought to Barkagaon hospital where he died during
treatment. It is further alleged that the accused persons have
intentionally caused murder of the deceased due to land
dispute.
4. On the basis of above information, FIR was registered for the
offence under section 302/34 of I.P.C. After conclusion of the
investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the above
appellants for the offence under section 302/34 of IPC. After
taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of
Sessions where S.T. No.242 of 2003 was registered. The
accused persons have denied the charges leveled against them
and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of trial, the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed,
which has been assailed in this appeal.
5. In course of trial, altogether 9 witnesses were examined by the
prosecution, namely:-
P.W.1-Most. Purba Devi
P.W.2 Baleshwar Prasad
P.W.3-Most. Ishwari
P.W.4-Baleshwar Prajapati
P.W.5-Ram Chandra Prajapati
(2025:JHHC:31696-DB)
P.W.6-Dr. Pranay Mohan
P.W.7-Bindwa Devi(informant)
P.W.8-Mohan Bhuiyan
P.W.9- S.I. Sri Krishna Singh (I.O.)
6. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, following
documentary evidence has also been adduced by the
prosecution:-
Ext.-Post-mortem report
Ext.2.-singature of the informant, Bindwa Devi on
fardbayan
Ext.2/1.- Signature of Surendra Rana on fardbayan
Ext.2/2.-hand writing on fardbayan
Ext.2/3.-Endorsement on fardbayan by officer-in-
charge
Ext.3-Formal FIR
Ext.4-Inquest report.
7. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been
adduced by the defence. The case of defence is denial from
occurrence and false implication due to land dispute. The
accused, Govind Rana has also pleaded that he was not
present in his house at the time of occurrence.
(2025:JHHC:31696-DB)
8. Learned trial court after evaluating the evidence available on
record held the appellants guilty for the offence of murder in
furtherance of the common intention, hence, convicted and
sentenced for the offence under section 302/34 of IPC as stated
above.
Submission on behalf of the Appellants:-
9. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellants assailing
the impugned judgment and order has vehemently argued
that admittedly there was land dispute between the parties
and the informant party were harvesting paddy crops in the
field of the appellants, therefore, a scuffle arose between the
parties in a sudden manner on the spur of moment and there
was no intention to kill the deceased. There is allegation of
single blow of lathi and tangi against the appellants but the
post-mortem report of the deceased shows single injury on
head of the deceased caused by hard and blunt substance. The
sole eye-witness of the occurrence is the informant-cum-wife
of the deceased, who has stated that her husband was
assaulted by tangi from sharp edge side but no such injury has
been found during post-mortem of the deceased. Another
injury is abrasion found on left elbow upon forearm 1 ½" x ½",
which might be caused by felling down on earth. Therefore,
(2025:JHHC:31696-DB)
the case is of single blow caused by lathi without any
premeditation and intention to cause death of the deceased but
unfortunately the deceased died during treatment. It is further
submitted that in the overall facts and circumstances as
brought on record by the prosecution, if admitted to be true on
its face value, no offence under section 302/34 of IPC is
constituted rather the case falls under section 304 part (II) of
the IPC. Both the appellants have undergone more than 10
years imprisonment during trial and post conviction and have
sufficiently been punished for their guilt. It is further
submitted that more than two decades have been passed away
from the alleged occurrence and both parties have settled in
their life in main stream without involving in any other
criminal activities. The appellants were granted bail vide order
dated 18.03.2013. Hence, the impugned judgment and order of
conviction and sentence of the appellants for the offence under
section 302/34 requires to be altered/modified for the offence
under section 304 Part (II) of IPC and the appellants may be
sentenced for the period of imprisonment already undergone.
Submission on behalf of State:-
10. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor
appearing for the State defending the conviction and sentence
(2025:JHHC:31696-DB)
of the appellants has contended that there was crush injury on
head causing multiple fractures. Therefore, a single mighty
blow leading to head of the deceased was sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death. The appellants have
approached the place of occurrence armed with deadly
weapon in their hand, therefore, it cannot be said that they
were not intending to cause death of the deceased rather they
have come prepared to go to the extent of commit murder. As
such, the appellants do not deserve any leniency in the matter
of sentence also. This appeal has no merits and fit to be
dismissed.
Analysis, Reasons and Decision:-
11. We have gone through the record of the case along with
impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of
the appellants in the light of contentions raised on behalf of the
both side.
12. For better appreciation of this case, it is here pertinent to
briefly discuss the evidence led by the prosecution.
P.W.1-Most. Purba Devi is gotni of the informant,
Bindwa Devi. According to her evidence, on 28.11.2002 at
about 11:00 hours, when she along with her gotni (informant)
and bhaisur, Nageshwar Rana were harvesting paddy crops in
(2025:JHHC:31696-DB)
the field, meanwhile, both the accused persons Chhatru Rana
and Govind Rana came to the field and damaged the crops and
started scuffling with Nageshwar Rana. Meanwhile, Chhatru
Rana gave a lathi blow on head and Govind Rana by tangi on
head of Nageshwar Rana, who sustained severe injuries and
fell down. The injured was brought to hospital where he died.
There is nothing in her cross-examination to rebut her
testimony.
P.W.2 Baleshwar Prasad is a hearsay witness. He came
to know about the incident after returning from the market. He
also came to know that both accused persons gave lathi blow
on the head of Nageshwar Rana, due to which he died.
P.W.3-Most. Ishwari has although stated like an eye-
witness in her examination-in-chief that she has seen the
accused, Chhatru Rana gave lathi blow and Govind Rana by
wooden side of tangi to Nageshwar Rana on his head but in
her cross-examination, she has categorically admitted that
when she saw the incident, Nageshwar Rana was lying in the
field and he was surrounded by several persons. She also
admits that in her statement recorded before the police, she has
not stated that Chhatru was bearing with lathi and Govind was
having tangi with him.
(2025:JHHC:31696-DB)
P.W.4-Baleshwar Prajapati has also claimed to be an
eye-witness of the occurrence. He heard hulla of his son, Ram
Chandra Prajapati, who was also harvesting paddy crops in his
filed nearby the field of the informant, then he rushed towards
the place of occurrence and saw that Chhatru and his son
Govind were assaulting to Nageshwar Rana by lathi and tangi.
The injured fell down in the muddy field and was brought to
hospital for treatment, where he died.
P.W.5 Ram Chandra Prajapati has also claimed to be
eye-witness of the occurrence. According to his evidence, he
was also harvesting his paddy crops in his field nearby the
field of the informant. He saw that Chhatru and Govind were
scuffling with Nageshwar Rana. Meanwhile, Chhatru started
assaulting by lathi on head of Nagedhwar Rana and Govind
Rana was having tangi also assaulted to Nageshwar Rana due
to which he fell down in muddy filed. Thereafter, the injured
was brought to hospital, where he died.
P.W.6 Dr. Pranay Mohan has conducted autopsy on
the dead body of deceased, Nageshwar Rana and found
following injuries:-
External Examination
(2025:JHHC:31696-DB)
(i) Mouth half open, eyes closed, bleeding at nostril,
rigor mortis present on both upper and lower
limb. Abrasion found on left elbow up to
forearm 1 ½" x ½".
(ii) Surgical stitches at scalp on right side of the
parietal region. On removal of stitches he found
fracture of parietal bones on both side with big
hematoma inside.
Internal Examination
(iii) Both lungs intact and pale, heart both chambers
empty. Spleen, liver and both kidneys intact and
pale. Stomach shows three ounces mocoid fluid.
Urinary bladder was empty.
Time elapsed since death 6 to 36 hours.
This witness has opined the cause of death due to
shock and hemorrhage due to injury to scalp caused by hard
and blunt substance.
He has further opined that such injury on scalp may be
caused hitting by blunt portion of tangi and lathi blows.
The post mortem report is marked as Ext.1.
P.W.7-Bindwa Devi is the informant-cum-wife of the
deceased. According to her evidence, she was harvesting
paddy crop in her field at the time of occurrence and has given
vivid description of the incident that the appellants came to
her field and started scuffling and protesting against the
cutting of paddy crops. She has stated that at first Chhatru
Rana gave lathi blow and Govind Rana by tangi to her
(2025:JHHC:31696-DB)
husband. Thereafter, Chhatru Rana snatched tangi from
Govind Rana and assaulted on head to her husband due to
which, he fell down and in course of treatment, he died. She
further stated that her fardbayan was recorded by police at
Barkagaon hospital. She has proved her signature on fardbayan
marked as Ext.2 and the signature of her son, Surendra Rana
marked as Ext.2/1.
In her cross-examination, this witness exaggerated the
incident and told that Chhatru has given 20-25 lathi blows to
her husband and Govind by tangi from the side of sharp edge
of tangi and that tangi was snatched by Chhatru and he gave
twice and thrice tangi blows on the head of her husband.
P.W.8-Mohan Bhuiyan has claimed to hear hulla about
the incident of assault while he was working in a temple as a
labour. He saw Chhatru Rana and his son Govind Rana were
armed with tangi and danda, who assaulted Nageshwar Rana
on his head. Thereafter, they fled away.
P.W.9- S.I. Sri Krishna Singh is the Investigating
Officer of this case. He has proved the fardbayan of the
informant, Bindwa Devi recorded by literate constable
Bindeshwari Singh on his dictation and signed by him
(Ext.2/2) and has also proved the signature of the then Officer-
(2025:JHHC:31696-DB)
in-Charge, Ram Pravesh Prasad on FIR as Ext.2/3 and Formal
FIR as Ext.3. He has also prepared inquest report of the
deceased in presence of the witnesses, which is marked as
Ext.4. He recorded the re-statement of the informant and also
visited the place of occurrence situated in village Meldi Penun
Gadha, where there was a naala at the place of occurrence and
blood-stains were not possible to be collected. He sent the
deceased for post-mortem and arrested the accused persons
and submitted charge-sheet against them.
In his cross-examination, he admits that he has not
seized the clothes of deceased. He has also not seized any lathi
and tangi used in assaulting to the deceased. He further admits
that one Baleshwar Prajapati (P.W.4) has not stated like an eye-
witness of the occurrence that Chhatru Rana gave lathi blow
and Govind Rana by tangi to the deceased. He has also stated
that eye-witness, Bindwa Devi (informant) has not stated
before him that Chhatru Rana gave lathi blow and Govind
Rana gave tangi blow to her husband. She has also not stated
about snatching the tangi by Chhatru Rana from Govind Rana
and assaulting to her husband. He further states that from the
place of occurrence, the police station is situated at a distance
of 12 kms.
(2025:JHHC:31696-DB)
This witness has denied the suggestion of the defence
that his investigation is defective and he has submitted charge-
sheet against the accused persons without sufficient evidence.
13. We have given thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid
testimony of the witnesses. It appears that the genesis of
occurrence is dispute regarding harvesting of paddy crops
from disputed field by the informant party. The scuffle took
place between the deceased and the accused persons, later on,
there was exchange of assault. From post-mortem report of the
deceased, it is quite obvious that a single blow injury was
caused on head, which might be caused by back wooden
portion of axe or by lathi as opined by the doctor (P.W.6). The
injury sustained by the deceased has also not been opined to
be sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death rather
the cause of death is shock and hemorrhage due to above head
injuries caused by hard and blunt substance. In the given
situation, the ingredients of offence of murder as defined
under section 300 of IPC corresponding to section 100 of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the degree of intention and
knowledge for constituting the offence of murder are not
attracted in this case rather the case falls under Exception 4 as
well as within the ingredients of culpable homicide not
(2025:JHHC:31696-DB)
amounting to murder as defined under section 299 of IPC i.e.
injury caused by the appellants was likely to cause death of the
deceased.
14. Under above circumstances, the offence committed by the
appellants falls under section 304 part (II) of the IPC, the
maximum sentence for which is R.I. for 10 years. The
appellants have undergone custody during trial and post
conviction from 28.11.2002 to 18.03.2013 i.e. more than 10
years. In our considered view, the appellants have sufficiently
been punished for their guilt.
15. In view of above discussion and reasons, the conviction and
sentence of the appellants for the offence under section 302/34
of IPC is altered/modified for the offence under section 304
Part (II) of IPC and the appellants are sentenced for
imprisonment already undergone.
16. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits with
modification in conviction and sentence of the appellants as
stated above.
17. The appellants are on bail, hence, they are discharged from
liability of bail bonds. The sureties are also discharged.
18. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly.
(2025:JHHC:31696-DB)
19. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be
sent back to the concerned trial court for information and
needful.
20. We take this opportunity to appreciate the assistance rendered
by Mrs. Rashmi Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae and direct the
Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee to
process fees of Rs.7,500/- (Rs. Seven Thousand and Five
Hundred) to Mrs. Rashmi Kumar within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this
order.
21. Office is directed to ensure that a copy of this order be served
to Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi
Date: 14/10/2025
Pappu/- N.A.F.R.
