Jharkhand High Court
Peyari Bhuiyan S/O Late Bifan Bhuiyan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 30 October, 2025
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
2025:JHHC:32813
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 329 of 2005
-----
(Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.02.2005
passed in Sessions Trial No. 370 of 1992 arising out of Patan P.S. Case No.
86 of 1992, G.R. Case No. 1068 of 1992 by Mr. Anirudh Prasad Sharma, 1st
Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj)
1.Peyari Bhuiyan S/o late Bifan Bhuiyan
2.Anhach Bhuiyan S/o Late Bhulu Bhuiyan
3.Yugal Bhuiyan S/o Anhach Bhuiyan
4.Brij Bhuiyan S/o Anhach Bhuiyan
5.Ramjit Bhuiyan S/o Raful Bhuiyan
6.Raful Bhuiyan S/o Bhulu Bhuiyan
All resident of village- Kajarma, P.S. Patan, District- Palamau
--- --- Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent
.......
For the Appellants : Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mrs. Juhi Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bishwambhar Shashtri, A.P.P.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
JUDGMENT
30.10.2025 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.P.P.
representing the State.
2. Learned counsel for the State at the outset has submitted that
appellant no. 2 namely Anhach Bhuiyan and appellant no.6 namely
Raful Bhuiyan have died during pendency of this appeal and to that
effect State has filed an affidavit enclosing the report of the Officer-
In-Charge of Patan Police Station, Palamau.
3. In view of the affidavit so filed by the State, the appeal as
against appellant no. 2 Anhach Bhuiyan and appellant no.6 Raful
Bhuiyan stands abated. Now the appeal survives only against
1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 329 of 2005
2025:JHHC:32813
appellant no.1, appellant no.3, appellant no. 4 and appellant no. 5.
4. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 24.02.2005 passed in Sessions
Trial No. 370 of 1992 arising out of Patan P.S. Case No. 86 of 1992,
G.R. Case No. 1068 of 1992 by the learned 1st Additional Sessions
Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj, whereby the appellants have been
convicted for the offence under Section 452,323,147 and 148 of the
IPC and they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years under
Section 452 IPC; 6 months imprisonment separately under Section
323, 147, 148 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run
concurrently.
5. The criminal law has been put into motion on lodging an F.I.R
being Patan P.S. Case No. 86 of 1992 against the appellants. It has
been alleged that by forming unlawful assembly the appellants have
assaulted the victim by house trespassing.
6. On the basis of the investigation, the Police has submitted
chargesheet against all the appellants. Thereafter cognizance has been
taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
7. Accordingly, the charge under Section 307, 326/149, 323 read
with Section 149, 452, 147 and 148 of the IPC was framed on
28.08.1997 against the appellants who who pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
8. To substantiate the allegations altogether nine prosecution
witnesses have been examined:
I. P.W.1-Raghuni Bhuiyan
II. P.W.2-Tetari Devi
III. P.W.3-Bhagirathi Bhuiyan
IV. P.W.4- Keshwar Bhuiyan
V. P.W.5- Rajdeo Bhuiyan
VI. P.W.6- Baghband Bhuiyan
VII. P.W.7-Kail Bhuiyan
VIII. P.W.8- Bishnu Bhuiyan
2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 329 of 2005
2025:JHHC:32813
IX. P.W.9-Bhola Prasad
9. After conducting full-fledged trial, the learned Trial Court has
convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants has confined his prayer to
the period of custody.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that since
there is no injury report on record, so at best conviction can be under
Section 323 IPC and as such punishment of two years imprisonment is
on the higher side. Further, it has been submitted that the incident is of
the year 1992 and the appellants have remained in custody for more
than six months and have suffered the agony of long trial.
On that basis, the sentencing part has been challenged and it has
been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that considering
the above mitigating factors, sentence may be reduced to the period
already undergone by the appellants.
12. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer and submitted that since
crime has been committed, no mercy should be given to the
appellants.
13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having
perused the record, it appears that there is allegation of assault but no
injury has been proved rather conviction is also under Section 323 of
the IPC.
14. Considering the fact that the learned Trial Court itself has
considered the nature of injury to be simple in nature and also
considering the fact that the incident is of the year 1992 and all the
victims and appellants are gotias and there is also land dispute
between both the parties, the sentencing part of the judgment of
conviction dated 24.02.2005 passed in Sessions Trial No. 370 of 1992
arising out of Patan P.S. Case No. 86 of 1992, G.R. Case No. 1068 of
1992 by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at
Daltongan is hereby interfered.
15. Accordingly, the maximum sentence of two years awarded by
3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 329 of 2005
2025:JHHC:32813
the learned Trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone by
the appellants i.e. about six months.
16. Since the appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the
liability of their bail bond.
17. This Criminal Appeal is allowed in part.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Dated 30th October 2025
A. Mohanty
Jharkhand High Court
4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 329 of 2005
