The High Court
Case Details
1 2025:JHHC:33185 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 586 of 2005 [Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.04.2005 passed by Sri Bhola Prasad, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rajmahal in Sessions Case No.168 of 2002] -------------- Suman Mandal S/o Mitu Mandal, resident of village-Dalahi, P.S. Rajmahal, District-Sahebganj Appellant … … Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Punam Kumari, D/o Rajendra Mandal, R/o Village-Dalahi, P.O.- Dalahi, P.S.-Rajmahal, District-Sahibganj, Jharkhand … … Respondents
Legal Reasoning
-------------- PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR -------------- :Mrs. Supriya Dayal, Adv. :Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, A.P. P. -------------- For the Appellant For the State Order No.15/ Dated 06th November, 2025 1. Vide order dated 21.02.2024, the present criminal appeal stands abated so far as appellant No.1, namely, Subodh Mandal and appellant No.2, namely, Mitu Mandal are concerned. 2. Now, the appeal survives only with respect to appellant No.3, namely, Suman Mandal. 3. Heard Mrs. Supriya Dayal, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, learned A.P.P., appearing for the State. 4. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.04.2005 passed by Sri Bhola Prasad, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rajmahal in Sessions Case No.168 of 2002, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 341, 448 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo S.I. for one month for the offence under Section 341 of IPC, further sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months for the offence under Section 448 of IPC, further sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months for the offence under Section 323 of IPC and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 586 of 2005 2 2025:JHHC:33185 5. The criminal law has put into motion by lodging an F.I.R. being Rajmahal P.S. Case No.14 of 1999, under Sections 341/ 448/ 323/ 307/ 379/34 of Indian Penal Code. 6. The F.I.R. has been lodged on the fardbeyan of the informant. The brief fact of the case is that on 13.01.1999 at 3.30 P.M. the informant while returning from tution heard hulla that some quarrel was going on between her brother Manoj Bharati and father Rajendra Mandal & Subodh Mandal Mitu Mandal and Suman Mandal at Aata Chakki. On that, she came out and saw that Subodh Mandal, Mitu Mandal, and Suman Mandal were trying to assault her father and brother after chasing. When she was going towards Aata Chakki to save her father and brother, Subodh Mandal holding Farsa, rushed towards her. Out of fear, the informant rushed towards her house. Subodh Mandal came running and assaulted on her head with Farsa causing blood injury due to which she fell down. After some time she gain sense where upon her father and brother also reached. Incidence was witnessed by Chhotka Hembram, Pairu Choudhary and many others and by that time, the assailants fled away. The Informant's further allegation was that Subodh Mandal entered into her house where she slept with her grand mother and took away Rs. 1100/- from the pocket of brother Manoj Kumar. She alleged that she had also received injury on her right hand. The reason behind the incidence according to the informant was that Subodh Mandal was also having Aata Chakki near that of her father’s mill and villagers used to go to her father's mill. 7. On the basis of said allegation, the police after investigation has submitted the charge-sheet under Sections 341/ 448/ 332 / 307/34 of IPC and accordingly cognizance has been taken and the case has been committed to the court of Sessions. On conclusion of trial, the appellant has convicted under Sections 341, 448 and 323 of IPC to which appellant has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. To substantiate the prosecution story, altogether ten witnesses have been examined. 9. P.W.-1 Punam Kumari, who is the informant of this case, P.W.-2 Rajendra Mandal, who is father of the informant, P.W.-3 Sanjay Mandal, who is brother of the informant, P.W.-4 Chhotka Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 586 of 2005 3 2025:JHHC:33185 Hembrum has been declared hostile, P.W.-5 Kailash Ram has been declared hostile, P.W.-6 Mahadeo Hembrum has been declared hostile, P.W.-7 Sudama Devi has been declared hostile P.W.-7(A) Duka Hembrum has been declared hostile, P.W.-8 Manoj Kr. Bharati, who is the brother of the informant, P.W.-9 is Dr. Anand Pd. Saha and P.W.-10 Narayan Chandra Saha is a formal witness. 10. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the only injury caused to P.W.-1 has been proved by the Doctor (P.W.9). The other injury has not been brought on record. 11. It has been further submitted that the above injury has been attributed to Subodh Mandal, who is already dead. So far as the present appellant is concerned, no specific allegation is made against him rather he has been roped in the present case on the strength of Section 34 of IPC but he has been acquitted from the charge of Section 34 of IPC. 12. It has been further submitted that so far as ingredient of Section 341 of IPC is concerned that is not available because there is no illegal confinement rather it was an open place. So far as Section 448 of IPC is concerned, there was no trespass because the place of occurrence is outside the house. So far as Section 323 of IPC is concerned, no injury has been proved rather he has been roped in on the basis of Section 34 of IPC and there is general and omnibus allegation. 13. On above basis, it has been submitted that there is no evidence on record to convict the appellant under the above sections. 14. Learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of conviction and submitted that P.W.-8 has stated that this appellant has used lathi and as such he has participated in commission of crime. 15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, it appears that it is quite clear that the appellant has been roped in on the basis of Section 34 IPC but there is no material to suggest that any individual injury has been caused by this appellant. 16. It is also a settled principle of law that once a person has been roped in on the basis of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 586 of 2005 4 2025:JHHC:33185 even the questions put under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are to be considered on the strength of Section 34 IPC. Accordingly, the defense has been prepared keeping in view the applicability and effect of Section 34 IPC. 17. Once Section 34 of IPC is removed then charging the appellant under individual act is otherwise not permissible. 18. In the present case, there is no evidence against the appellant rather there is general and omnibus allegation. 19. In view of above discussion, this Court finds that the judgment of conviction is bad in law as there is no sufficient material. 20. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.04.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rajmahal in Sessions Case No.168 of 2002 is, hereby, set aside. 21. The appellant is on bail and as such he is discharged from the liability of the bail bonds. 22. 23.
Decision
In the result, the appeal stands allowed. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, alongwith the copy of this Judgment. (Rajesh Kumar, J) Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi Dated 06th November, 2025 Shahid/N.A.F.R./ Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 586 of 2005