Basant Tanti @ Chotu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 January, 2026

Author: Sanjay Prasad

Bench: Sanjay Prasad

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 734 of 2025
                                    ....

            Basant Tanti @ Chotu                           ...... Appellant
                                    Versus
            1. The State of Jharkhand
            2. Phulmani Lohar                                 ..... Respondents
                                    -----
            CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
                                    -----
            For the Appellant          : Mr. Prabhat Singh, Advocate
            For the State              : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, A P. P.
                                    ......

         I. A. No. 12017 of 2025

05/14.01.2026      This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the

appellant through Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee.

2. It appears from the office note that although the notice was issued upon the Informant-Respondent No. 2 of this case in the light of the order dated 25.11.2025 and tracking report and the receipt of notice have been placed on record.

3. It has also been reported by the office that no vakalatnama has been filed by the respondent no. 2.

4. As more than 30 days expired after issuance of notice dated 25.11.2025 and as such, service of notice upon the respondent no. 2 is deemed to be valid.

5. This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the impugned judgment of conviction dated 02.04.2025 and sentence dated 09.04.2025 passed by Mohammad Shakir, learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in connection with Manoharpur P. S. Case No. 30 of 2023 corresponding to G. R. No. 342 of 2023 [S. T. No. 509 of 2023] by which the appellant has been convicted for the

offences under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of seven (7) years and to pay the fine of Rs. 10,000/-.

6. I. A. No. 12017 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 430 (1) of BNSS for the suspension of sentence and for grant of bail, during the pendency of this Criminal Appeal.

7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the State.

8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in law. It is submitted that the appellant is innocent and has committed no offence and has been falsely implicated in this case by the Informant. It is submitted that there is no eye witness of the occurrence, except the Informant. It is submitted that all injuries are not grievous in nature, but the same is not corroborated from the evidence of P.W.-4, Dr. Devi Prasad Hansda. It is submitted that both the sides are known to each other and which has also been admitted by the injured P.W.-2, Kunwar Lohar and also P.W.-1, Phulmani Lohar, who is the Sister of the Injured -Kunwar Lohar i.e. P.W.-2. It is submitted that seizure of knife has not been validly proved as the seizure list witnesses Sanika Tanti was not examined by the prosecution and however another seizure list witness namely Ajeet Tirkey i.e. P.W.-3 has been declared hostile by the prosecution. It is submitted that FSL report of blood-stained knife was marked as Ext.-P-6, and DNA profile shows that more than one human source of origin. It is submitted that defence of the appellant has not been considered by the learned Court below. It is submitted

that the appellant is in custody since 01.07.2023 i.e. for around two (2) years and six (6) months and as such, the appellant may be enlarged on bail.

9. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is no illegally and infirmity in the impugned judgment. It is submitted that there is direct allegation against the appellant for assaulting the Injured i.e. P.W.-2, Kunwar Lohar in his abdomen, which had caused grievous injury and his intestine come out. It is submitted that P.W.-1, Phulmani Lohar is the eye witnesses of the occurrence whereas P.W.-2, Kunwar Lohar is the Injured himself and the victim of the occurrence and they have fully supported the prosecution case. It is submitted that P.W.-5, Karmi Lohar is the mother of the Informant i.e. P.W.-1, Phulmani Lohar and injured i.e. P.W.-2, Kunwar Lohar and she has also supported the prosecution case, though she is hearsay witness. It is submitted that P.W.-4, Dr. Devi Prasad Hansda is the doctor and who has found grievous injury on the person of the injured. It is submitted that the appellant has not completed the half of the custody and hence prayer for bail of the appellant may be rejected.

10. Perused the LCR and considered the submission of both the sides.

11. It appears from the FIR that both i.e. the Informant and the appellant are known to each other. It also appears from the evidence of P.W.-1, Phulmani Lohar i.e. the Informant of this case and who is the sister of the injured i.e. P.W.-2, Kunwar Lohar and even the injured i.e. P.W.-2, Kunwar Lohar has stated that both the parties are known to each other and they had cordial relationship.

12. It further appears that P.W.-4, Dr. Devi Prasad Hansda is the Doctor and who has found following injury on the Injured, which are as follows:-

(i) Penetrating wound on abdomen suprapubic region below umbilicus, size 1 and 1/2 Inch x deep Penetrating, visceral content (Omentum) comes out with blood and blood clots.

Time of Injury -Within 06 to 08 hours.

Nature of Injury- Grievous in nature.

Cause of injury- Injury caused by sharp pointed object.

13. It appears from the evidence of the injured i.e. P.W.-2, Kunwar Lohar that the appellant had assaulted him by knife and due to which he remained for around fifteen (15) days in Hospital and has not been able to pursue the work for a long period, however, during cross-examination at para- 7, he denied to have the illicit relationship with the wife of the accused namely Basant Tanti i.e the appellant. He also stated in para-8 of his cross-examination that when he was assaulted by knife then he fled away and hide himself in the house of one Suku Tanti. Thereafter, he was taken to Manoharpur Hospital, however, he has not disclosed this fact to anyone. The conduct of the Informant i.e. P.W.-1, Phulmani Lohar clearly shows that he wanted to conceal the fact of assault upon him as there may be some other different circumstances for committing the offence as alleged in FIR. The act committed by the appellant appears to be impulsive movement by which he had assaulted the injured, P.W.-2, Kunwar Lohar in his abdomen by knife.

14. It appears from the statement of the accused- Basant

Tanti recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that while he was in custody, the injured, P.W.-2, Kunwar Lohar had fled away with his wife and child.

15. It also appears that though the Informant i.e. P.W.-1, Phulmani Lohar claims to be the eye witness of the case, but circumstances do not show that she is the eye witness of the occurrence.

16. It appears that It is submitted that the appellant is in custody since 01.07.2023 i.e. for around two (2) years and six (6) months.

17. Considering the facts and the circumstances of the case and also considering the custody of the appellant, the appellant namely Basant Tanti @ Chotu is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Mohammad Shakir, learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa/or his Successor Court in connection with Manoharpur P. S. Case No. 30 of 2023 corresponding to G. R. No. 342 of 2023 [S. T. No. 509 of 2023] subject to condition that the appellant will restrain himself in future from committing any overt act.

18. Thus, I. A. No. 12017 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed of.

19. It is well settled from the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Raj Versus State of Bihar reported in (2013) 10 SCC 421 that Criminal Appeal is continuation of trial and hence, the injured is entitled to be compensated by the State in the light of the provisions of Section 396 of BNSS.

20. Considering the nature of injuries of the inured, learned

Secretary, DLSA, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa is directed to inform that whether any compensation has been paid to the victim under provisions of Victim Compensation Act or not and in the meantime, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) be paid to the injured i.e. P.W.-2, Kunwar Lohar for the present in the light of the provisions of Section 396 of the BNSS under the Victim Compensation Scheme by Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa and Superintendent of Police, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa with co-ordination with learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa learned Secretary, DLSA, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa.

21. Let a copy of this order be sent to learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, Superintendent of Police, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, learned Member Secretary, JHALSA and learned Secretary, DLSA, Dumka for the needful.

(Sanjay Prasad, J.) Dated 14.01.2026 Kamlesh/