Ram Chandra Ram @ Manjhi Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 February, 2026

Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

                                                      2026:JHHC:3113



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
           Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 199 of 2022

 [Arising out of judgment of conviction dated 23.02.2022 and order of
 sentence dated 26.02.2022 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-V,
 Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 17 of 2016]

1. Ram Chandra Ram @ Manjhi Ram, S/o Late Chulhi Ram
2. Bikash Ram, S/o Ram Chandra Ram @ Manjhi Ram
3. Pramila Devi @ Geeta Devi @ Pramila,
   W/o Ram Chandra Ram @ Manjhi Ram
4. Mukesh Ram @ Mukiya, S/o Ram Chandra Ram @ Manjhi Ram
   All are resident of Village Kudar, Rawani Tola,
   P.O. & P.S.-Bagodar, District-Giridih
                                           .....   .... Appellants
                                Versus
The State of Jharkhand                     ...       ....   Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Appellants              : Mr. Vishal Kumar, Advocate
                                  Ms. Ishaani Singh, Advocate
For the State                   : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the Informant               : Mr. Awnish Shankar, Advocate
                                  Mr. Atul Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
                        ------

Order No. 08 / Dated : 04.02.2026.

1. The appellants are in appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in Sessions Trial No. 17 of 2016, whereby and whereunder, appellants have been convicted under Sections 307/34 and 341/34 of the IPC and sentence to five years RI and fine of Rs. 10,000/- in Section 307/34 and in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment of three months and R.I. for six months and a fine of Rs 2000 and in default of payment of fine S.I. for 15 days.

2. Fardbeyan of Prakash Ram recorded in Primary Health Centre, Bagodar on 16.08.2015 at 10:25 hours is the basis of the case. As per the FIR, when the informant took a tractor to plough his field, all these appellants threatened him with life and asked him to leave the field. It was stated that the tractor will be set on fire if the ploughing was not stopped. It alleged that all these appellants doused him with petrol and set him on fire. At the time of incidence his son-Subhash Kumar had also reached there. Somehow, the villagers gathered there and accused persons fled away.

3. On the basis of fardbeyan Bagodar P.S. Case 332 of 2015 was registered

2026:JHHC:3113

under Sections 341, 342, 323, 326, 307 and 34 of the IPC against all the appellants.

Police on investigation found the case true and submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons and they were put on trial for these offences.

4. Altogether seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and relevant documents including FIR and injury report were adduced into evidence and marked as Exhibits.

5. Statement of these accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The specific defence is that there is no dispute with respect to said land where the incidence took place. Earlier the dispute was about Khata No. 84 Plot Nos. 18, 32 and 33 and the matter was settled.

6. A copy of order passed in Case No. 42 of 2016 under Section 145 Cr.P.C. decided in favour of the appellants against one Savitri Devi has been adduced into evidence on behalf of the defence and marked as exhibit.

7. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellants that all witnesses are interested witnesses and there is vital contradiction in their deposition. Even on the basis of these depositions, an offence under Section 307 will not be made out as per the injury report which had stated the injuries to be simple in nature.

8. It is argued that as per the FIR, all these four appellants were the aggressors and the informant and his son was all alone at the time of incidence. Therefore, had they any intention to cause the death, they could have inflicted injuries much more serious than what was found on the person of the injured. P.W.-4 is the independent witness and he has deposed that he cannot say before the police in which part of the body the injured had sustained burn injuries. Further, he has not narrated the manner in which the informant was set on fire. Son of the informant has been named in the FIR to be present at the place of occurrence, but he has been withheld and not examined as a witness. It is also argued that in the FIR, the allegation of setting on fire is against Ram Chandra Ram @ Manjhi Ram and other family members have been needlessly dragged in the case.

9. On the point of sentence, it is submitted that the appellants were in settled possession of the land in question which is apparent from Ext.-A and they were attempted to be dispossessed by the informant party which led to the incidence. Further, appellant no. 1, is aged about 71 years whereas his wife,

2026:JHHC:3113

aged about 64 years.

10.Learned A.P.P. assisted by the Mr. Awnish Shankar, appearing on behalf of the informant has defended the judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

11.It is argued that there is no delay in the FIR which was lodged on the very same day of incidence while the informant was undergoing treatment in the hospital. A judgment of conviction and order of sentence is sustainable on the basis of solitary account of the injured. However, in the present case his testimony is fully corroborated by other prosecution witnesses namely P.W.- 1, who is the brother of the informant and P.W.-2, who was the driver of the tractor.

12.Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, there cannot be little doubt regarding the factum of incidence in which the informant sustained burn injuries. The burn injuries are proved by injury report (Ext.-2) by the doctor who has been examined as P.W.-6. As per the injury report, he sustained the following burn injuries: -

              I.     Burn (3" x 2" x ¼") over back of left arm.
              II.    Burn area (3" x 2" x ¼") over back of right arm.
              III.   Burn area (10" x 8" x ¼") over back of chest.
              IV.    Burn spot (2" x ½" x ¼") on left cheek.
              V.     Burn spot (2" x ½" x ¼") on right cheek.

It has also been noted by the doctor that it was a case of 20% burn area and the injuries were caused by inflammable substance.

13.The informant (PW-5) of the case has stated that all the accused persons who had come to the place of occurrence and opposed the ploughing of the field. Driver of the tractor was Dashrath Yadav, and when he was asked to plough the field, Mukesh Ram came there and stopped the plouhing of the field. He returned to set the tractor on fire. In the meantime, Ramchandra Ram, Pramila Devi and Vikas Ram came there. All of them surrounded him. Ramchandra Ram was having a bottle of petrol of about 3 Litres. He was also having a torch which was wrapped on a small stick which was lit by him. Ramchandra Ram doused him with petrol and setting him on fire. His son Subhash came to his rescue, and accused persons ran towards him. Taking advantage of this, the informant fled away and got the fire extinguished by rolling over the ground. Thereafter, he fled away from there.

2026:JHHC:3113

It is further stated that he was again surrounded and assaulted by them.

14. PW-1 is Raj Kumar Ram, but he has not been named in the FIR to be present at the place of occurrence. It is settled law that FIR cannot be treated as an encyclopedia of the entire events. However, where the informant states the name of his son to be present in the FIR, but does not state the name of this witness, his very presence becomes doubtful.

15.P.W-2 is the driver of the tractor and is the natural witness present at the place of occurrence. He has corroborated the testimony of the informant regarding the genesis of the incidence. It has been deposed by him that when he took his tractor for ploughing the field, the appellants came and objected to it. They also threatened to set the tractor on fire. It has also been deposed that informant was able to extinguish the fire. He is an independent witness, and there is no reason to doubt his testimony. Although he has avoided stating anything about the manner of incidence, but has corroborated the prosecution case with regard to the manner in which it took place, and that the informant had extinguished the fire. He has been declared hostile, but there is no impediment to look into the part of his testimony, which has remained unrebutted.

16.There is no defence plea taken either in the suggestion given to these witnesses or in the statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. that the burn injuries were accidental in nature.

17.Law is settled that testimony of an injured witness is entitled to a higher degree of credence. In the absence of any defence plea, his testimony regarding the cause of burn injuries remains unrebutted that it was caused by the accused persons. Testimony of the informant is corroborated by medical evidence, by the testimony of PW2 and also by his earlier statement which is the FIR of the case.

18. On the combined reading of the testimony of witnesses, it can be safely concluded that when the informant started ploughing the field, he was obstructed by the appellants. They threatened the tractor driver of setting it on fire. The informant was sprinkled with petroleum and by the torch in the hand of the appellant Ramchandra Ram, he was set on fire.

19.The matter for consideration before this court is whether on these proved facts charge under section 307 of the IPC is proved against all the accused persons with the aid of section 34 of the IPC.

2026:JHHC:3113

20.An act will amount to an attempt to murder, if the act is such that if it is not prevented or intercepted, it would be sufficient to cause the death of the victim. To constitute the offence no injury need be caused to the victim. If in the course of the attempt, bodily injury is caused, the accused would be liable to enhanced punishment. To sustain conviction u/s 307 of IPC the intention to kill should be clearly proved by the circumstances like persistence of attack on vital part of the body. This section clearly contemplates an act which is done with the intention of causing death, but which fails to bring about the intended consequence on account of the intervention of a cause operating independently of the volition of the agent. Thus, the intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. It has been held in Hari Mohan Mandal v. State of Jharkhand, (2004) 12 SCC 220 wherein it has been held that it is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. What the court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof.

21.Here in the present case, the appellants had not come to cause death of the informant, but had come there to object and stop him from ploughing the field. Person charged with the offence of attempt to commit murder should be credited with the requisite intention or knowledge for causing death. Intention or knowledge in any case can be adjudged only on the basis of the weapon of assault, the part of the body in which the assault was directed and overall facts and circumstance of the case. As per the FIR, informant was all alone at the time of incidence and his son is said to have come to his rescue later on. The son has however, not been examined. No deadly weapon was employed, in the said assault and the petrol was taken there to threaten the tractor driver to set his vehicle on fire. These train of events gives an insight to manner in which the occurrence took place. It is difficult to be persuaded by the argument on behalf of the State, that the appellants were actuated by an intention to cause death of the informant. Had they such an intention, they being four in number could have succeeded in their intention to cause

2026:JHHC:3113

death. It does not appear that, the informant was pursued, and that appellants persisted by all means to cause fatal injuries to him.

22.On these materials and for the reasons discussed above, this Court is of the view that charge under Section 307 of the IPC is not proved.

23.On the basis of the materials and record and overall facts and circumstance of the case, the appellants/accused persons are definitely guilty for the offence of causing hurt by dangerous means to the informant.

Under the circumstance conviction under section 307 of the IPC is modified to section 324/34 of the IPC and the appellants are sentenced to the terms of imprisonment already undergone by them.

Conviction of the appellants under section 341 IPC is sustained however, their sentence is modified to the period already undergone by them.

With this modification, in finding and sentence, the appeal stands dismissed.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pawan/ -

Uploaded 06.02.2026