Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 509

2026 JHHC 10270
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH KUMAR, J.
Umesh Prasad & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 42 of 2019
Decided On : 09-04-2026
Advocates Appeared :
For the Appellants : Mr. Sabyasanchi.
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sabyasanchi
For the Respondents: Pankaj Kumar Mishra

A conviction for attempt to murder requires clear evidence of lethal intent and corresponding injury patterns; when medical findings prove injuries are minor and lack the severity typically associated with fatal intent, the charge of attempt to murder cannot be sustained.

Headnote:(A) Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 341, 324, and 307 read with Section 34 - Conviction for attempt to murder - Nature of weapon and medical evidence - Injuries found to be simple and caused by hard and blunt substance - Ingredients of section 307 of the Penal Code not established - Exaggeration in testimony of witness undermining the charge - Conviction regarding attempt to murder set aside. (Paras 14, 15)

(B) Appeals - Sentencing - Period of custody already undergone - Appellants already served nearly 14 months of imprisonment - Sentence for remaining offences deemed to be served. (Paras 12, 17, 18)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for offenses involving wrongful restraint, voluntarily causing hurt, and attempted murder. The prosecution alleged that the victims were assaulted with a spade and a rod. The trial court convicted the appellants on all charges. In appeal, the defense contended that the medical evidence confirmed only simple injuries caused by blunt force, and challenged the credibility of witness statements that exhibited significant exaggeration regarding the incident.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the nature of the weapon used and the resulting simple injuries recorded in the medical report negated the essential ingredients required to sustain a conviction for attempt to murder. Furthermore, the court noted that the testimony provided lacked consistency and exhibited clear exaggeration, rendering the higher-order charge unsustainable.

Issues: The main issues addressed were whether the conviction under section 307 was legally sustainable in the absence of evidence proving intent to cause death, and whether the medical evidence of simple injuries was compatible with the charge of attempted murder.

Ratio Decidendi: Where medical evidence shows that injuries are simple and result from blunt force, and witness testimony is deemed exaggerated, the constituent elements of attempt to murder are not met, rendering the conviction for that specific charge legally defective.

Result: Appeal partly allowed; conviction under Section 307 IPC set aside; sentences for remaining convictions deemed served due to period of imprisonment already undergone.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and factual background of the criminal assault case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. evaluation of prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence submitted at trial. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. parties' contentions regarding the sustainability of section 307 conviction. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. judicial assessment of evidence negating section 307 and sentencing modification. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel the appellants and learned A.P.P. representing the State.

2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 17.12.2018 and order of sentence dated 21.12.2018 passed in S.T. No. 31 of 2010 with S.T. No. 165 of 2010 arising out Garhwa P.S. Case No. 266 of 2009 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1127 of 2009 by Sri Shambhu Lal Shaw, Additional Sessions Judge-III, Garhwa, whereby both the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 341/324/307 read with Section 34 of the IPC and they have been sentenced to undergo S.I. for 15 days under Section 341/34 of the IPC; R.I. for 1 year under Section 324/34 of the IPC and R.I. for 5 years with a fine of Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand) and in default of payment of fine, further directed to undergo S.I. for 1 year under Section 307/34 of the IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The criminal law has been put into motion on lodging of an F.I.R being Garhwa P.S. 266 of 2009 on 02.09.2009 at about 07.45 A.M. by the informant Antima Devi.

The brief story as per the informant is that on 02.09.2009 at about 07.00 A.M., the assailants, Umesh Prasad, Chottu Prasad, Savita Devi and Preeti Kumari assaulted her husband by spade and rod with an intention to kill causing him seriously injured. Due to bleeding he was treated at Sadar Hospital, Garhwa. The nanad- Aarti Devi of the informant was married with one Ramesh Prasad, son of Bishwanath Sao (Accused persons are in relation of this Ramesh Prasad). They were demanding Rs. 1,00000/-(One Lakh).

Upon this, the present Garhwa P.S. Case No. 266 of 2009 dated 02.09.2009 was registered under Section 341, 324,307 and 34 of the IPC against the four named accused persons including the present two appellants.

4. On the basis of the investigation, the Police has submitted the charge sheet twice. First charge sheet was submitted against the accused Umesh Prasad, which was culminated into S.T. No. 31 of 2010. Subsequently, second charge sheet was submitted against accused Chottu @ Ravi Prasad which became S.T. No. 165 of 2010. Since both the sessions trials arose out of the same F.I.R, both were amalgamated and tried together.

5. Accordingly, the charges were framed on 31.07.2012 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 307/34 of the IPC against the accused. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To substantiate the allegations altogether eight prosecution witnesses have been examined. Their brief statements are as follows: -

I. P.W.1-Prem Kumar Kachyap- This witness has turned hostile and deposed that he did not see the occurrence.

II. P.W.2-Anand Nemhans Minz, He is the investigating officer of the case who has stated that in course of investigation he has investigated the place of occurrence He has proved the memo of injury of victim as Ext. 1. He obtained injury report. He has proved the furdbeyan as Ext., 2 and formal FIR as Ext.3. However, inspite of opportunity and repeated call the defence did not turn up for cross examination.

III. P.W.3-Taiyab Ansari- He has deposed that the occurrence took place on 02.09.2009 at about 07.00 morning. He had gone to Chiniya More to bring vegetable. Upon hearing the hulla he reached the place of occurrence and found that the two appellants along with two ladies were assaulting the victim Manoj Prasad Gupta and the informant Antima Devi by spade and danda causing bleeding injury at their forehead and back.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document