Hurilal Hembrom vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 February, 2026

Author: Sanjay Prasad

Bench: Sanjay Prasad

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
             Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 626 of 2024
Hurilal Hembrom                         ......         Appellant
                            Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Sabodi Hansda                       .......      Respondents
                      ---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
                      ----------
For the Appellant      : Ms. Saumya Pandey, Advocate
For the State          : Mr. Achinto Sen, APP
                      -----------
ORAL ORDER IN COURT

07/Dated: 02nd February, 2026 I.A. No.7528 of 2025 Heard Ms. Saumya Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant who has appeared through Video Conferencing and Mr. Achinto Sen, learned APP for the State. The Audio and Video is proper and there is no complaint.

2. This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the judgment of conviction dated 10.06.2024 and sentence dated 13.06.2024 passed by Sri Dharmendra Kumar Singh, learned Additional Sessions Judge- IV, Dumka in Sessions Trial No.154 of 2017, arising out of Kathikund P.S. Case No.55 of 2016 (corresponding to G.R No.1087 of 2016) by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I for seven (07) years and to pay the fine of Rs.10,000/-.

3. I.A. No.7528 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the appellant for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail, during pendency of the appeal.

4. This Criminal Appeal has been filed through Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee on behalf of the appellant.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment and sentence passed by the learned Court below is illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that only interested witnesses have supported the prosecution case and no independent witness has supported the prosecution case. It is submitted that the doctor i.e. P.W-8 has found Injury Nos.1 and 2 simple in nature but Injury No.3 is grievous. It is submitted that P.W-1-Amar Soren is the eye witness of the occurrence and he is also an interested witness and he is nephew of the informant. It is submitted that P.W-5 and P.W-7 namely, Mani Murmu and Jetha Soren have been declared hostile by the prosecution. It is submitted that there is several contradiction on the part of the prosecution witnesses. It is submitted that the appellant is in custody for two (02) years and two (02) months out of seven (07) years rigorous imprisonment and hence the appellant may be enlarged on bail.

6. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that there is direct allegation against the appellant for assaulting the informant by Sword due to which four fingers of the left hand were amputated and there were grievous injury on his person. It is submitted that P.W-2 and P.W-3 namely, Sabodi Hansda and Sarita Soren have fully supported the prosecution case. P.W-8 is the doctor who had examined the injured and hence the prayer for bail of the appellant may be rejected.

7. Perused the Trial Court Record and considered the submission of both sides.

8. It transpires that the informant is the mother-in-law of the appellant (i.e. P.W-2) and she had lodged the F.I.R against

the appellant (i.e. own son in-law) who had assaulted her husband on 14.09.2016 by sword with an intention to kill him. However, when her husband struck his hand in protest then his forefingers were amputated and he also sustained injury on his neck.

9. It transpires that P.W-8 is the Dr. Sanjay Das who had examined the injured-Sidhu Soren and found the following injuries on his person:-

"(i) Incised wound 2" x 1" on neck (font of neck)

(ii) Incised wound 10 cm x 2 cm on chest

(iii) Amputated left index, middle, ring and little fingers from base."

Nature of Injuries No.(i) & (ii) are simple and (iii) is grievous. All injuries have been caused by sharp substance.

10. It reveals that the four fingers of the left hand of the husband of the informant were amputated.

11. It transpires that P.W-2-Sabodi Hansda is the informant of this case and she has fully supported the allegation against the appellant and stated that the appellant tried to kill her husband when he forbade the appellant for taking their daughter to matrimonial home. She stated that the appellant used to assault her in drunken condition and due to which her daughter was not happy. She also stated by her that her husband was treated at Rinchi Kathikund Government Hospital and thereafter he was referred to Sadar Hospital, Dumka and from there he was again referred to Siwri Private Hospital where he was treated for two days and thereafter her husband was referred to RIMS and when he was treated for around one and half month and thereafter her husband was taken to Vellore where he was treated for around two weeks

and the neck of her husband was operated as he was not taking the breath properly and they had made expenditure of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rs.Eight Lakhs) by selling their land and animals for treatment of her husband.

Even during cross-examination, she has supported the case that dispute took place when her husband forbade her son-in-law for taking away their daughter and her husband had become unconscious.

Thus, P.W-2 has fully supported the case.

12. P.W-3-Sarita Soren is the wife of the appellant who has supported the case and stated that her husband had arrived in drunken condition on 14.09.2016 at her Maike and asked her to accompany and which was protested by her father and he tried to convince him that he may take her in the morning as it is night but the appellant became aggressive and tried to hit her father by Sword on the head and which was stopped by her father by his hand due to which four fingers of the left hand were amputated and her father was taken to Rinchi Hospital, Kathikund for treatment and from there he was taken to Dumka Sadar Hospital and thereafter he was taken to Siwri Private Hospital and from there her father was taken to RIMS, Ranchi where he was treated for around two weeks and thereafter her father was taken to Vellore Hospital and where he was treated for around one month and made expenditure of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rs.Eight Lakhs).

Thus, P.W-3 is also an eye witness and consistent on the point of assault.

13. Even P.W-9 is Sidhu Soren is the injured himself and who has fully supported the case and stated that the appellant tried to kill him by Sword which was stopped by his left hand

due to which his four fingers were amputated and thereafter he became unconscious and learnt that he was treated to Rinchi Hospital and thereafter he was taken to Dumka Sadar Hospital and thereafter he was taken to Siwri Hospital and then he was referred to RIMS, Ranchi where he treated for around two months and he was not able to take breath properly and thereafter he was taken to Vellore Hospital and there he was under treatment for around two months and still not taking breath properly.

14. This Court finds that P.W-9 is injured and he is also consistent on assault made upon him by the appellant.

15. Thus, there is no merit in this Interlocutory Application. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the appellant is rejected.

16. It appears that although the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 307 of IPC but no compensation has been paid to the Victim-P.W-9 under the provision of Victim Compensation Scheme and the informant- P.W-2 on account of injury sustained by him at the hands of the informant.

17. The learned Trial Court appears to be negligent. He should have awarded some monetary compensation to the Victim also.

18. Therefore, this Court in exercise of power conferred as Appellate Court, directs the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka and Superintendent of Police, Dumka to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs.Three Lakhs) for the present for the expenditure made by him for his treatment.

19. The Member Secretary, JHALSA and Deputy Commissioner, Dumka and Superintendent of Police, Dumka

are directed to coordinate with the District Administration for grant of compensation.

20. Let this amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs.Three Lakhs) be paid to the Victim and the informant at once within four weeks from today.

21. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Member Secretary, JHALSA, Deputy Commissioner, Dumka and Superintendent of Police, Dumka and Secretary, DLSA, Dumka for the needful.

22. The compensation must be disbursed and the matter be informed to this Court.

23. Thus, I.A. No.7528 of 2025 is, hereby, rejected and stands disposed of.

Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.626 of 2024

24. Put up this case on 17.03.2026.

(Sanjay Prasad, J.) Dated: 02.02.2026 Saket/-