The High Court
Case Details
1 2025:JHHC:34684 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 420 of 2004 [Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.02.2004 passed by learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No.108 of 1992] -------------- 1. Shuku Manjhi son of Nima Manjhi 2. Bhim Manjhi son of Bhukla Manjhi 3. Devcharan Bedia @ Channa son of Bhurgoo Bedia 4. Louri Bedia son of Kamal Nath Bedia 5. Atewa Manjhi son of Bahadur Manjhi 6. Shibu Manjhi son of Dhona Manjhi 7. Nakul Manjhi son of Manjhlu Manjhi 8. Babudas Manjhi son of Mahabir Manjhi 9. Shivlal son of Rameshwar Bediya All resident of village Bhubhyee, Police Station-Gola, District- Appellants Hazaribagh … … The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent Versus -------------- PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR -------------- :Mr. Aditya Banerjee, Adv. :Mr. Praful Jojo, A.P. P. -------------- For the Appellants For the State Order No.13/ Dated 20th November, 2025 1. Vide order dated 22.04.2025, the present criminal appeal stands abated so far as appellant No.3, appellant No.4, appellant No.7, appellant No.10, appellant No.11, appellant No.12, appellant No.13, appellant No. 14 and appellant No.17 are concerned. 2. Now, the appeal survives only with respect to appellants, namely, Shuku Manjhi, Bhim Manjhi, Devcharan Bedia @ Channa, Louri Bedia, Atewa Manjhi, Shibu Manjhi, Nakul Manjhi, Babudas Manjhi and Shivlal. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Aditya Banerjee, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Praful Jojo, learned A.P.P., appearing for the State. 4. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.02.2004 passed by learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No.108 of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 420 of 2004 2 2025:JHHC:34684 1992 whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 323/ 149/ 147/ 148 and 304(I) of IPC and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 147 of IPC, further sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years for the offence under Section 148 of IPC and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence under Sections 323 and 149 of IPC and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for eight years with fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 304(1)/149 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, further sentenced to undergo S.I. for one month and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 5. The criminal law has put into motion by lodging an F.I.R. being Gola P.S. Case No.35 of 1988 against the appellants. The F.I.R. has been lodged on the fardbeyan of the informant, namely, Satyanarayan Singh. The brief fact of the case is that the accused came at the farm of informant in which the paddy was seeded, out of whom 4 accused persons, namely, Jagarnath Bedia, Dhanu Manjhi, Benilal Bedia & Gauri Bedia started cultivation over the aforesaid farm and Nema Manjhi, Atewa Manjhi, Tuar Manjhi, Khande, Nima, Bariyar Manjhi, Sukwa Manjhi, Sohray, Shivlal Bedia, Gopal Bedia, Lauri Bedia, Jitwa and Nakul Manjhi armed with stick, spear, farsa & danda were standing there. Further, the informant at about 8 a.m. to 8.30 a.m. came to know that aforesaid accused persons were cultivating his land and after hearing such fact, he along with his brother Pradip, Baijnath, Kailash and uncle Devki Nandan Singh went to the Place of occurrence and found that the information which he has received was correct. On having reached at the place of occurrence, the informant's brother and father prohibited the accused persons from cultivating the farm but they did not refrain from the encircled them. Meanwhile Shivlal and Nima Manjhi instigated the rest accused persons abusing the informant party for assaulting them so as to terminate the dispute forever. Then Shibu charged, farsa to his brother, namely, Baijnath and he snatched farsa from Shibu but due to assault on head, Baijnath fell down on the ground. At the same time, informant saw that Babudas Manjhi aimed arrow to his cousin brother, namely, Kailash, who fell down on the ground, after sustaining narrow injury on his chest. Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 420 of 2004 3 2025:JHHC:34684 Observing such happening, the villagers Dawarikanath, Budiya Bedia, Hitlal and Kaleshwar Bedia of the same village assembled there on call of the informant, who had seen the occurrence. Then we took out two injured persons to Gola Police Station for treatment, where doctor declared Baijnath Singh dead and observing Kailash serious, referred him to Ranchi. It has further been alleged that in connection with the place of occurrence i.e. land, there was dispute since long between informant party and accused party. 6. On the basis of said allegation, the police after investigation has submitted the charge-sheet under Sections 147/ 148/ 149/ 302/ 307/ 324/ 347/ 341 and 141 of IPC and accordingly cognizance has been taken and the case has been committed to the court of Sessions. On conclusion of trial, the appellants have convicted under Section 323/ 149/ 147/ 148 and 304-(I) of the IPC to which appellants have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. To substantiate the prosecution story, altogether eleven witnesses have been examined. P.W.-1-Rajeshwar Mahatha has deposed that the reason behind the quarrel is with regard to possession of agricultural field and he has further deposed during cross examination that he reached the place of occurrence after the accused fled away. P.W.-2-Dwarika Mahatha is an eye-witness of the alleged occurrence. P.W.-3-Hetlal Bedia has been tendered. P.W.-4-Tuleshwar Bedia is an eye-witness. P.W.-5-Binod Lal Khanna is the cousin brother of the informant and he has put signature on the seizure list i.e. Exbt.-1. P.W.-6-Ratan Lal Mahatha is a formal witness, who has proved the inquest report (Ext.-2). P.W.-7-Pradip Kumar Singh is brother of the informant and he has proved the fardbeyan i.e. ext.1/1. P.W.-8-Satya Narayan Singh is the informant himself and he is an eye-witness. P.W.-9-Kedar Nath Singh is father of the informant and he has deposed that quarrel was going on between the parties with regard to land. Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 420 of 2004 4 2025:JHHC:34684 P.W.-10-Rathedra Vishnu Nanhein is the Investigation Officer of the case. P.W.-11-Kailash Singh is the brother of the informant and he has deposed that he has also sustained injury. 8. The defense has also examined one witness as D.W.-1-Moti Ram. He has proved the counter case brought on record and this fact has also been got corroborated by the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer i.e. P.W.-11. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has made submission raising following points. (i) Neither injury report nor post mortem report is on record. (ii) The Court has itself held that the injury caused was whether sufficient to cause death or not, cannot be ascertained and in the absence of such ascertainment, the punishment under Section 304(I) of IPC is not sustainable. (iii) The trial court has negated the conviction under Section 324 of IPC rather the conviction is under Section 323 of IPC using Section 149 of IPC and in such a circumstances, this also corroborates the fact that the ingredients of Section 304(I) of IPC is missing. 10. Referring to the material brought on record, it has been submitted that there is a land dispute between the parties and there was a free fight. Further, the appellants side have also sustained injury and this fact has been corroborated in the cross- examination by the Investigating Officer. 11. Referring to the age of the appellants, it has been submitted that some appellants are dead and except appellant No.2 and appellant No.3, who are around 60 years of age, rest are senior citizens having age of more than 60 years. 12. It has also been submitted that the incident is of the year 1988 and parties are neighbor and they have already suffered a lot for such a long pending trial/appeal. 13. In view of above submission, it has been prayed that the conviction of Section 304(I) of IPC may be quashed. Further, in view of mitigating circumstance, the sentence part may be reduced Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 420 of 2004 5 2025:JHHC:34684 to the period already undergone as the appellants have remained in custody in following manner:- Appellant’s Name Period of Custody Shuku Manjhi Bhim Manjhi 04 months, 03 days 04 months, 08 days Devcharan Bedia @ Channa 01 months, 01 day Louri Bedia Atewa Manjhi Shibu Manjhi Nakul Manjhi 01 months, 01 day 01 months 07 months, 19 days 04 months, 03 days Babudas Manjhi 07 months, 27 days Shivlal 03 months, 08 days 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of conviction and submitted that although there is no medical evidence but the ocular evidence is sufficient showing the intention of the parties and as such conviction under Section 304(I) of IPC is fully justified. 15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, it appears that: (i) The trial court has negated the nature of injury sufficient to cause death and there is no positive finding regarding the intention and as such conviction under Section 304(I) of IPC is not sustainable. Accordingly, it is, hereby, set aside. But there is sufficient material to suggest that death has occurred due to scuffle between the parties and as such the conviction under Section 304(I) of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC is converted to Section 304 (II) of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC. (ii) So far as conviction under Section 323 of IPC is concerned, it is, hereby, sustained using Section 149 of IPC. (iii) The conviction under Sections 147 and 148 of IPC are also sustained because there was unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons. Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 420 of 2004 6 2025:JHHC:34684 (iv) So far as sentencing part is concerned, since the dispute is of the year 1988 and except few, all the appellants have attained the age of more than 60 years and it is a land dispute between the parties and also considering the fact that they have remained in custody, this Court finds that sentencing part should be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants. 16. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.02.2004 passed by learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No.108 of 1992 is, hereby, modified to the extent that Section 304(I) of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC is converted to Section 304 (II) of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC. So far as sentencing part is concerned, it is, hereby, reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants. 17. The appellants are on bail and as such they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. 18. In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed with the above modification in the sentencing part. 19. 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 20th November, 2025 Shahid/N.A.F.R./ Uploaded on 24.11.2025 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 420 of 2004