Jharkhand High Court
Raj Kishore Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 September, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 651 of 2025
1.Raj Kishore Singh
2.Vikash Singh
3.Vijaya Devi ...... Appellants
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Dhiraj Kumar Singh ....... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
----------
For the Appellants : Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ajay Kr. Pathak, APP
-----------
th
03/Dated:15 September, 2025
I.A. No.10097 of 2025
This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the
appellants by challenging the judgment of conviction and
sentence dated 19.07.2025 passed by Sri Rajendra Kumar Sinha,
learned Additional Session Judge-III, Deoghar in Session Trial
No.302 of 2021, arising out of Sarwan P.S. Case No.31 of 2018
(corresponding to G.R. Case No.476 of 2018) by which all the
appellants have been convicted for the offences under Section
325/34, 323/34, 337/34 and 338/34 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for five (05) years each, R.I. for six (06) months
each, R.I. for six (06) months each and R.I. for one (01) year
each respectively.
2. I.A. No.10097 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the
appellants for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail to the
appellants, during pendency of the present Criminal Appeal.
3. Heard Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, learned counsel for the
appellants and Mr. Ajay Kumar Pathak, learned APP for the
State.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
impugned judgment and sentence passed by the learned Trial
Court is illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is
submitted that there is no specific allegation against the
Appellant No.3-Vijaya Devi except pelting stone. It is submitted
that the Appellant No.1-Raj Kishore Singh and the Informant-
Dhiraj Kumar Singh (i.e. Respondent No.2) are the own uncle
and nephew and there is land dispute between the parties. The
informant side had objected the selling of the joint landed
property and hence the occurrence had taken place. It is
submitted that the appellants had remained in custody for some
period during trial and after conviction they are in custody since
19.07.2025 and hence, they may be enlarged on bail.
5. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer for
bail. It is submitted that the injured witnesses P.W-3 and P.W-5
namely, Daula Singh and Piyus Kumar Singh and P.W-4-
Sudama Devi have supported the case. It is submitted that the
P.W-6 is the informant who has also supported the case and the
hand of Sudama Devi (i.e. P.W-4) was fractured which was
found as the grievous injury and hence the bail of the appellants
may be rejected.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going
through the records, it appears that the Appellant No.1-Raj
Kishore Singh and the informant-Dhiraj Kumar Singh are own
uncle and nephew and there is dispute with regard to landed
property which has come from the evidence of P.W-3, P.W-4
and P.W-5.
7. It appears from the evidence of P.W-3 that Vikash Singh-
Appellant No.2 had assaulted Daulat Singh (i.e. the father of the
Informant) on his cheek due to which he sustained injury and he
had also assaulted his wife-Sudama Devi (i.e. P.W-4) on her
head. Appellant No.1-Raj Kishore Singh had also assaulted
Sudama Devi (i.e. P.W-4) on her head and left hand due to
which her left hand got fractured.
P.W-5-Piyus Kumar Singh stated that Raj Kishore Singh
has assaulted her mother by 'Lathi' due to which her left hand
got fractured and he had also sustained injury of 'Lathi' blow by
Vijaya Devi.
P.W-6 is the informant who stated that Vikash Singh
assaulted his father by 'Rod' which caused injury in his left
cheek and Vikash Singh assaulted her mother by 'Rod' on her
head and hand due to which her hand was fractured and co-
accused Vijay Devi had assaulted his younger brother Vikash
Singh by 'Lathi' due to which his head had swollen.
8. From the evidence of the I.O-P.W-7, it reveals that there
was dispute of selling of one Katha of land.
9. It also reveals that Daulat Singh-P.W-3 (i.e. the father of
the informant) has received cut injury of ½" x ½" x ½" and there
is no supplementary injury report.
10. From perusal of evidence of P.W-8-Dr. Sunil Kumar
Singh, it appears that Sudama Devi-P.W-4 (i.e. the wife of the
Informant) has sustained three (03) injuries and Injury No.3 on
left forearm shows fracture of lower end of left ulna, whereas
there was no opinion with regard to Injury No.1 and 2.
11. Considering the facts that the both sides are 'Gotia', the
appellants namely, Raj Kishore Singh, Vikash Singh and Vijaya
Devi are directed to be released on bail, on their furnishing bail
bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen thousand only) each with two
sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned
Additional Session Judge-III, Deoghar in Session Trial No.302
of 2021, arising out of Sarwan P.S. Case No.31 of 2018
(corresponding to G.R. Case No.476 of 2018), subject to
payment of Rs.25,000/- each by the Appellant No.1- Raj
Kishore Singh and Appellant No.2-Vikash Singh, total
Rs.50,000/- (total Rs.Fifty Thousands) to the injured Daulat
Singh and Sudama Devi under the Victim Compensation at the
time of furnishing their bail bonds.
12. Thus, I.A. No.10097 of 2025 is allowed and stands
disposed of.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Dated:15.09.2025
Saket/-
