[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Chakradhar Bauri Aged About 40 Years S/O ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 April, 2026
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
2026:JHHC:9989
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.08 of 2019
[Against the judgment of conviction dated 12.12.2018 and the order of sentence dated 14.12.2018
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge-F.T.C. Bokaro in Sessions
Trial No.178 of 2012]
----
1. Chakradhar Bauri aged about 40 years s/o Late Ratan Bauri
2. Shobha Ram Bauri aged about 60 years s/o Late Ratan Bauri
3. Radhanath Bauri aged about 35 years s/o Manbhur Bauri.
All R/o Chukulia Ramdih, P.O.+P.S.- Pindrajora, Dist.-Bokaro
(Jharkhand) .... .... Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... Respondent(s)
----
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
----
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Kumar Nilesh, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P.
----
By Court:
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the
State.
2. The present appeal has been filed Against the judgment of conviction
dated 12.12.2018 and the order of sentence dated 14.12.2018 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge-F.T.C. Bokaro in
Sessions Trial No.178 of 2012 whereby the appellants have been convicted
under Sections 341, 323 and 506 of the IPC and have been sentenced to
undergo one year imprisonment under Section 506/34 IPC, six months
imprisonment under Section 323/34 IPC and one month imprisonment 341/34
IPC. All the sentences shall run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 17.09.2011, the accused persons
attempted to throttle the informant; however, she somehow managed to escape.
It is further alleged that the accused persons had been threatening the husband
of the informant. On the same day, her husband had gone to Chas Market but
did not return till late at night. On 18.09.2011, during the course of search, the
informant found her husband lying in an unconscious state by the side of the
2026:JHHC:9989
road near Village Choura, Jharkhand, having been assaulted. With the help of
the villagers, the injured was taken to Muskan Hospital for treatment.
4. On the basis of the written report of the informant, the present criminal
case has been put into motion by lodging an FIR being Pindrajora P.S. Case
No.117 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1259 of 2011 for the offence
under Sections 341, 323, 307, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. The police after investigation had filed charge-sheet for the offence
under Sections 341, 323, 307, 506 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the
trial court had framed charges against the appellant for the offence under
Sections 341/34, 307/34, 323/34, 506/34 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code
on 28.02.2013, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. To substantiate the allegation, altogether nine witnesses have been
examined. P.W.1-Karam Chand Bauri & P.W.-2 Sujit Kumar Bauri had
deposed that when they came to know that their younger brother namely
Dharam Bauri was missing, they started searching him and found he was lying
in unconscious state in pool of blood. Thereafter, he was taken to Muskan
Hospital and in course of treatment he died. Further, they deposed that on
inquiry they came to know that accused persons committed marpit with their
brother. These witnesses in cross-examination has stated that the accused
persons have committed marpit with their younger brother.
7. P.W.3-Mritunjay Bauri is the son of deceased Dharam Bauri. He
deposed that the accused persons threatened to kill his father and on that day
his father went to take some Khhad from Telidih but did not return. In cross-
examination this witness stated that he had seen his father in unconscious
position.
8. P.W.4-Manu Devi is the informant of this case and wife of the
deceased. She has supported the prosecution case and narrated the occurrence.
She also stated that her husband's treatment was done for a month but he died.
In cross-examination she stated that some quarrel was made in between her
husband and accused and accused has threatened to kill her husband.
9. P.W.5 & P.W.6 are the doctors who examined the deceased Dharam
Bauri and P.W.7 is also the doctor who conducted post-mortem over the dead
body of Dharam Bauri.
Page | 2 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.08 of 2019
2026:JHHC:9989
10. P.W.8 Falguni Chand Bhattacharya was a Liasoning Officer at
Muskan Hospital and proved the injury report and P.W.9 is Dr. Shahnawaj
Anwar who is consultant of Muskan Hospital and also examined the patient.
11. On the other hand, three defence witnesses have been examined on
behalf of defence. D.W.1-Mukesh Bauri, D.W.2-Pradip Kumar Bauri & D.W.3-
Shankar Bauri. All the DWs stated in same version that due to consumption of
wine, deceased fell on road.
12. After concluding the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the
accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein the allegations were
denied.
13. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the offence under
Section 506 of the IPC is not made out. In this regard, he has referred to the
statements of the witnesses, particularly P.W.-1 and P.W.-4 (informant/wife),
who have claimed themselves to be eye-witnesses. Their statements clearly
suggest that the parties are neighbours and that there was a dispute regarding
the cutting of a tree, with the prosecution side insisting on cutting the same,
which was being opposed by the present appellants. It has been contended that
none of the ingredients of Section 506 IPC are made out, as nothing has come
on record to indicate any criminal intimidation beyond the said dispute. The
mere demand for cutting the tree and refusal thereof does not constitute an
offence under Section 506 IPC.
14. So far as Sections 323 and 341 IPC are concerned, it has been submitted
that this is the first offence of the appellants and they have already remained in
custody for more than three months. It is further contended that the court below
has wrongly refused to extend the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act,
and, therefore, a prayer has been made for reduction of the sentence to the
period already undergone.
It has further been submitted that the matter arises out of a
neighbourhood dispute, there is no element of criminality involved, and no
weapon has been used.
15. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the
judgment of conviction and the order of sentence. It has been submitted that
there is sufficient evidence on record to sustain the conviction under Sections
Page | 3 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.08 of 2019
2026:JHHC:9989
323 and 341 IPC. So far as Section 506 IPC is concerned, it has been argued
that although the dispute was between neighbours, the same ultimately led to a
scuffle.
16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the
records, as well as the discussions made hereinabove, this Court finds that the
ingredients of Section 506 IPC are not made out, as is evident from the
evaluation of the statements of the witnesses. The dispute between the parties
was essentially a neighbourhood dispute relating to the cutting of a tree, where
one party was insisting and the other was refusing.
17. Accordingly, the conviction under Section 506 IPC is hereby set aside.
So far as the conviction under Sections 323 and 341 IPC is concerned, the
evidence of the witnesses clearly suggests that there was a dispute and that
injuries were there. However, this Court finds that the court below has erred in
refusing to extend the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to the
appellants.
18. Hence, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 341 & 323 IPC by
the Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge-FTC, Bokaro is upheld.
However, they have already served the sentence.
19. With the aforesaid modification, the present criminal appeal partly
stands allowed and disposed of.
20. The appellant is on bail and as such he is discharged from the liability of
his bail bonds.
21. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.
22. Let the Trial Court Records be sent to the court concerned forthwith,
along with the copy of this judgment.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
The Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi
Dated: 08th April, 2026
Amar/NAFR
Uploaded on 17.04.2026
Page | 4 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.08 of 2019
