The High Court
Case Details
2025:JHHC:33459 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAN‘D AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 896 of 2005 [Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.09.2004, passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge 1st, Fast Track Court, Giridih in Sessions Trial No.397/1993, arising out of Jamua P.S Case No.41/1992, corresponding to G.R No.405/1992] 1. Ishaque Mian. 2. Muslim Mian Both are sons of Bhola Mian, resident of Balatal, P.S.-Jamua, District- Giridih. …. …. Appellants 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Saimun Nisha, Wife of Bali Ahmad, resident of Kasai Muhlla, P.S.- Versus Rajmahal, District- Sahebganj. …. …. Respondents ---- PRESENT
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR For the Appellant(s) For the Respondent(s) Dated: 7th November, 2025 ---- : Mr. Parwez A. Khan, Advocate : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P. [Through Video Conferencing] 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the State. 2. The present Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.09.2004 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge 1st, Fast Track Court, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 397 of 1993, arising out of Jamua P.S Case No.41/1992, corresponding to G.R Case No.405/1992 whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C). and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one Page | 1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 896 of 2005 2025:JHHC:33459 year for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. and further, they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 325 I.P.C. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. 4. It appears that there is a case and counter case between the parties. In the present case, the police after investigation has submitted the charge sheet against three accused persons. One accused namely, Bhola Mian has been given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 5. The criminal law has been put into motion by lodging an F.I.R. being Jamua P.S. Case No. 41 of 1992 against the appellants under Sections 323, 324, 325, 307 and 34 of the I.P.C. 6. The prosecution case, in brief, is that a tree of ‘Ijmali Karong’ was situated in the village of the informant. The son of the informant namely, Kalim, aged about 8 years had gone to pick up the seeds of Karonj on 19.03.1992 at 03:00 P.M., the cousin brother of the informant, namely, Ishaque Mian, Muslim Mian and Bhola Mian assaulted the son of the informant with fist and slap and drove away from them. Thereafter, informant’s son came back to his house and told about this to his father, then informant had gone there and asked why have you driven away my son after beating him. On this, the uncle of the informant assaulted him with Tangi due to which he sustained injury on his head. The blood was oozing out and fell down on the ground. After that, the cousin of the informant namely, Ishaque Mian and Muslim Mian had also assaulted him with Lathi due to which his right-hand bone was broken and sustained injury on the waist. Page | 2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 896 of 2005 2025:JHHC:33459 7. The police after investigation has submitted charge sheet against all the accused persons for the offences under Sections 323/34, 325/34 and 307/34 of the I.P.C upon which, cognizance has been taken and charge has been framed under the aforesaid sections and the case has been committed to the court of Sessions to which the appellants have pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried. 8. To substantiate the prosecution story, altogether six witnesses have been examined. P.W.1 Dr. K. Kumar, P.W.2 Diljan Mian, P.W.3 Kalim Ansari, P.W.4 Islam Mian, P.W.5 Basudev Rai and P.W.6, Harihar Mahto. 9. P.W.-1 is Dr. K. Kumar, who has examined the injuries and has found that the same is simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance except the injury no. 3. Injury no. 3 has stated to be the facture of bone, but there is no scientific material/X-ray for recording of opinion. 10. P.W.-2, Diljan Mian is the informant/victim and an injured witness. He has stated that there was a case and counter-case between them, but he has denied any compromise. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has gone to the place of occurrence and has also stated that the children should be allowed to pick the “Karanj seeds”. 11. P.W.-3, Karim Ansari is the son of the informant, but he is not an eye witness to the occurrence. 12. 13. 14. P.W.-4 Islam Mian has been declared hostile. P.W.-5, Basudeo Rai is an independent witness. P.W.-6, Harihar Mahto is a formal witness, who proved the FIR and fardbayan. Page | 3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 896 of 2005 2025:JHHC:33459 15. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the injury are simple in nature. Since the opinion of the Doctor regarding the injury No.3 is not based upon any factual matrix or scientific procedure, mere opinion carries no merit. It has to be based upon the scientific examination. In the present case, no X-ray Report has been submitted and as such, conviction under Section 325 is not sustainable. So far as the conviction under Section 323 IPC is concerned, it has been submitted that there was a case and counter case between the parties as it was a sudden scuffle. The parties are on litigation terms and they are also Gotia. It is nothing, but a false allegation. 16. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State has supported the judgment of conviction and it has been submitted that one of the injuries has been found grievous by the Doctor and there is also an injured witness, who has clearly stated that the injury has been caused by the present appellants. 17. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal the records, it appears that:- (i) (ii) Injury nos.1 and 2 have been found simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. Injury no. 3 has been said to be facture of bone, but there is no material to suggest that there was a fracture as no scientific evidence is available on record. Page | 4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 896 of 2005 2025:JHHC:33459 18. Thus, the finding given by the Trial Court that the one of the injuries is grievous in nature is not based upon the material available on record and accordingly, the judgment of conviction under 325 IPC is hereby set-aside. 19. So far as conviction under Section 323 IPC is concerned, P.W.-2 namely, Diljan Mian has clearly stated that he has been assaulted and nothing contradiction has been found so far as the assault and injury is concerned. 20. In that view of the matter, the conviction under Section 323 IPC is hereby sustained. So far as the sentencing part is concerned, the incident of the year 1992 and the parties are Gotias. Further, the appellant No. 1 namely, Ishaque Mian has remained in custody for about 1 year 28 days and the appellant No.2 namely, Muslim Mian has remained in custody for about four months and 9 days. 21. In view of the above mitigating circumstances, the sentencing part is, hereby, reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants. 22. 23.
Decision
In the result, the present appeal stands partly allowed. Since the appellants are already on bail, they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. 24. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this judgment. Dated: 7thNovember, 2025 Simran/Raja- (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Page | 5 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 896 of 2005