[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Lakhan Karan Deo vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 April, 2026
2026:JHHC:11022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 816 of 2008
---------
[Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.06.2008
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-8, Hazaribagh in S.T.
No.551 of 2005 arising out of Barhi P.S. Case No.107 of 2005 corresponding to
G.R. No.1210 of 2005]
---------
Lakhan Karan Deo, Son of Baldeo Karan Deo, Resident of Village-Deo
Chanda, P.O. and P.S.-Barhi, District-Hazaribagh
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Respondent
---------
For the Appellant : Mr. Hemant Kumar Shikarwar, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, A.P.P.
-----------
PRESENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
-----------
th
Dated: 16 April, 2026
1. Heard Mr. Hemant Kumar Shikarwar, learned counsel for the
appellant and learned A.P.P.
2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 21.06.2008 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-8, Hazaribagh in S.T. No.551 of 2005
arising out of Barhi P.S. Case No.107 of 2005 corresponding to G.R.
No.1210 of 2005, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held
guilty for the offences under sections 307, 341, 324 and 506 of Indian
Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years for the offence
under section 307 of IPC along with a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default
stipulation, one month S.I. for the offence under section 341 of IPC and
2 years R.I. for the offence under section 324 of IPC and further 2 years
2026:JHHC:11022
R.I. for the offence under section 506 of IPC. All the sentences are
directed to run concurrently.
Factual Matrix:-
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 05.05.2005 at about
5:30 am, when the wife of the informant had gone to attend the call for
nature, the appellant armed with a sword came out from the nearby bush
and assaulted her resulting in injuries on her both hands. Upon seeing
the life threat, the wife of the informant tried to flee away but she was
chased by the appellant and again she was assaulted with the sword on
her thigh. On hearing hulla, the local villagers arrived and saw the
appellant and other two accused persons fleeing away from the place of
occurrence. Thereafter, the injured was brought to Barhi Hospital for
treatment but seeing the seriousness of injuries, she was referred to
Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh.
4. On the basis of aforesaid information, Barhi P.S. Case No.107 of 2005
was instituted for the offences under sections 341, 324, 307, 354, 506,
109, 120B of IPC. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet
was submitted against the appellant and after taking cognizance, the
case was committed to the court of Sessions, where S.T No.551 of 2005
was registered. The appellant has denied the charges leveled against him
and claimed to be tried.
5. Prosecution has examined altogether 6 witnesses in this case and several
documentary evidences have also been adduced.
2026:JHHC:11022
6. 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.
Submission on behalf of appellants:-
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has
been held guilty and sentenced for the offence under sections 307, 324,
341 and 506 of IPC and maximum sentence awarded to him is 7 years.
It is further submitted that the injured, Padum Devi has sustained three
incise wounds, the first injury is on the palm causing loss of an index
finger and other two injuries are simple in nature. Learned counsel
submits that the circumstances under which the occurrence has taken
place does not constitute the offence under section 307 of IPC rather it
falls under section 326 of IPC. Learned counsel further submits that the
maximum sentence awarded by learned trial court is 7 years, out of
which the appellant has already undergone imprisonment of 3 years and
8 months during pendency of trial and post-conviction and has
sufficiently been punished for his guilt. Therefore, learned counsel for
the appellant restricts himself towards the quantum of sentence awarded
to the appellant and prays for modification of sentence to extent of
imprisonment already undergone for the offence under section 326 of
IPC instead of section 307 of IPC.
2026:JHHC:11022
Submission on behalf of State:-
8. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised by learned
counsel for the appellant and defending the impugned judgment on
merits has submitted that the appellant has caused sword injuries which
manifests his intention to kill the injured and in course of saving herself
from the sword blow given by the appellant, she has sustained grievous
injuries. Therefore, this appeal has no merits and fit to be dismissed.
Analysis, Reasons and Decision:-
9. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned
judgment and order in the light of the contentions raised on behalf of
both side.
10.The evidence of Dr. Mangla Prasad Singh goes to show that the injured,
P.W.4, Padum Devi has sustained following injuries:-
(i) Cut injury on left palm which starts from medium side of
wrist up to index finger root and length is about 5 inches
across whole palm and loss of left index finger, which is
caused by hard and sharp weapon.
(ii) Cut injury on right palm starts from upper zone of thumb
up to upper root of index finger. Across whole palm, caused
by hard and sharp weapon.
(iii) Cut injury right forearm posterior region and size 6 ½" x
1" x ½" caused by hard and sharp weapon.
2026:JHHC:11022
(iv) Cut injury frontal region of right thigh upper side
6"x1/2"x1/4" caused by sharp weapon.
The injury No.(i) is opined to be grievous in nature while injury
Nos.(ii) to (iv) are found to be simple in nature.
11.In order to prove an offence under section 307 of IPC essential mensrea
to constitute the said offence has to be proved. Mensrea can be inferred
from the kind of weapon used, nature of injury, force used and part of
body etc. The onus lies on the prosecution that the accused has caused
an act with intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that if
by such act death was caused, he would be guilty of murder. In the
instant case, the occurrence took place in a sudden manner although, the
appellant has inflicted sword blow but nature of injuries caused to the
injured and manner of assault clearly indicates that the required
intention or knowledge for constituting the offence under section 307 of
IPC is absolutely lacking in this case.
12.In view of the above discussion and reasons, the conviction of the
appellant for the offence under section 307 of IPC is hereby set aside
and is altered to under Section 326 of IPC. Accordingly, appellant is
found guilty for the offences under sections 326, 324 and 506 of IPC. It
is also obvious and undisputed that the appellant has already undergone
custody for about 3 years and 8 months which appears to be sufficient
punishment for his guilt for the offence committed by the appellant.
2026:JHHC:11022
13.Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in
conviction and sentence as stated above.
14.The appellant is on bail. He is discharged from liability of his bail bond
and sureties are also discharged.
15.Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly.
16.Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record be sent back
to the court concerned for information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Pappu/-
16/04/2026
