No S.302/307 IPC Conviction Without Specific Attributability of Fatal/Grievous Act or S.34 IPC Charge; Appellants Guilty of S.323 IPC: Jharkhand High Court - 2025-06-20

Jharkhand HC Alters Murder, Attempt to Murder Conviction to Simple Hurt Citing Lack of Specific Attributability and Absence of S.34 IPC Charge

Ranchi, Jharkhand – The High Court of Jharkhand, in a significant ruling, has set aside the conviction of two appellants, Om Prakash Sah and Ramesh Prasad Sah , for murder (Section 302 IPC) and attempt to murder (Section 307 IPC), altering their conviction to voluntarily causing hurt (Section 323 IPC). The division bench, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar , delivered the judgment on June 10, 2025, in an appeal pending since 1996.

The court's decision hinged on the lack of specific attribution of the fatal and grievous injuries to the appellants and the critical absence of a charge under Section 34 IPC (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention).

Case Background

The case dates back to an incident on October 28, 1994, stemming from a dispute over a joint well between the informant, Devendra Sah , and his uncle's family. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, Om Prakash Sah and Ramesh Prasad Sah , along with their now-deceased brother Naresh Sah , attacked Devendra Sah . When Devendra 's elder brother, Surendra Sah (the deceased), intervened, he was fatally assaulted. Another brother, Rabi Sah (PW4), was also injured in the attack.

The Sessions Judge, Deoghar, had convicted all three accused under Sections 302 and 307 IPC in 1996, sentencing them to life imprisonment for murder and five years RI for attempt to murder. The appeal against Naresh Sah abated upon his death during its pendency.

Appellants' Contentions

The counsel for the appellants, Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, argued primarily that: * There was no specific attributability of the fatal act against Om Prakash Sah and Ramesh Prasad Sah . * The overt act leading to Surendra Sah 's death (knife blow to the abdomen) was committed by Naresh Sah (now deceased). * Conviction under Sections 302 and 307 IPC was unsustainable without invoking Section 34 IPC, as no specific fatal or life-threatening injuries were proven to be caused by the current appellants. * Evidence for conviction under Section 307 IPC was weak, with no injury report for the informant (PW3) and contradictions regarding injuries to PW4.

State and Informant's Arguments

Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, APP for the State, and Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate for the informant, jointly defended the trial court's judgment, contending that: * There was ample evidence for conviction under Section 302 IPC, as the appellants participated in the assault on the deceased. * Sufficient material established the offence under Section 307 IPC based on witness testimonies and injuries sustained by PW4.

High Court's Analysis and Reasoning

The High Court meticulously re-evaluated the evidence and legal provisions.

The Crucial Absence of Section 34 IPC

The Court noted that the appellants were convicted under Sections 302 and 307 IPC without the aid of Section 34 IPC. > "It needs to refer herein that the charges were framed by the learned trial Court under Section 302 and 307 of the IPC against the accused persons including the present appellants and the appellants have been convicted under Section 302 and 307 of the IPC without taking aid of the Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code." (Para 66)

The judgment elaborated on Section 34 IPC, emphasizing that its essence lies in "common intention" and "participation in action." Without this charge, the culpability of each accused had to be assessed individually based on their specific acts.

Scrutiny of Witness Testimonies and Medical Evidence

The Court reviewed the testimonies of eyewitnesses (PW1 Angrej Yadav, PW2 Tarini Prasad Yadav), the informant (PW3 Devendra Sah ), and the injured witness (PW4 Kumar Ravindra @ Rabi Sah).

* PW1, PW2, PW3, and PW4 consistently stated that Naresh Sah (deceased co-accused) first assaulted with an axe and then inflicted the fatal knife blows to Surendra Sah 's abdomen and chest. They testified that Om Prakash Sah and Ramesh Prasad Sah assaulted the deceased and others with iron rods.

* Medical Evidence (PW6 Dr. M.A Sattar) corroborated this, stating the cause of Surendra Sah 's death was "hemorrhage and shock, as a result of specially stab injury of chest associated with sharp cut injury of abdomen." The doctor noted bruises consistent with rod blows but identified the stab/sharp cutting injuries as fatal.

The Court concluded: > "Thus, from the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses it is evident that Naresh (since dead) was the person who was instrumental in causing death of deceased by means of assault of axe, made by him upon the deceased... Therefore, it is evident that the present appellants had not inflicted any fatal blow on the body of the deceased." (Para 84) > "...death/homicide of Surender(deceased) was caused by the Stab injury which was made by the Naresh (since dead) with knife. So far, the role of present appellants is concerned it has come on the record that they had assaulted the deceased with iron rod but the doctor (P.W.6) has found the stab injury which proved fatal to the deceased and the doctor has nowhere stated that the fatal injuries were caused by iron rod." (Para 87)

Assessing Culpability for Murder (S.302 IPC)

Given the evidence and the absence of a Section 34 IPC charge, the Court found: > "...on the basis of aforesaid discussion it is the considered view of this Court that the case under Section 302 of IPC is not made out against the present appellants and the said view has been based upon the Medical evidence wherein it has come that death was caused due to stab injury inflicted by knife and as per the testimony of the witnesses, the stab injury upon deceased was caused by the Naresh (since dead)." (Para 88)

Evaluating Attempt to Murder (S.307 IPC)

Regarding the injuries to PW4 (Rabi Sah), the doctor (PW5) found two head injuries dangerous to life (one sharp cut by axe, one lacerated) and two simple bruises. * PW4 testified Naresh Sah (armed with an axe) caused the axe blows, while the appellants inflicted rod blows on his leg. The Court reasoned that injury (i) (sharp cut by axe) was attributable to Naresh . For injury (ii) (lacerated wound, dangerous to life), also on the head, its genesis couldn't be definitively attributed to the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, as PW4 mentioned being hit twice on the head by the axe. > "So far, the injury no.(ii) which was grievous in nature, the genesis of the said injury cannot be attributed to the present appellants reason being that the PW4 himself had stated that he was assaulted twice upon head by the axe, as such the genesis of the said injury no.(ii) cannot be fully ascertained and attributed to these appellants beyond reasonable doubt." (Para 99) > "This Court, after having discussed the factual aspect and legal position and considering the finding recorded by the learned trial Court, is of the view that accusation under Section 307 of the IPC against the present appellants is not made out..." (Para 109)

The Principle of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt

The Court invoked established legal principles, citing Rang Bahadur Singh & Ors. Vrs. State of U.P. and Krishnegowda & Ors. Vrs. State of Karnataka , emphasizing that guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. > "Unless the prosecution establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt a conviction cannot be passed on the accused." (Quoting Rang Bahadur Singh , Para 100)

It also referred to Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat , stating: > "...if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted." (Para 105)

Final Verdict and Sentence Modification

Based on its analysis, the High Court concluded: * The charge under Section 302 IPC against Om Prakash Sah and Ramesh Prasad Sah was not made out. * The charge under Section 307 IPC was also not made out against them. * However, the evidence established that the appellants caused simple hurt (injuries (iii) and (iv) to PW4 with iron rods), falling under Section 321 read with Section 323 IPC.

> "The appellants, namely, Om Prakash Sah and Ramesh Prasad Sah are acquitted of the charge framed against them for the offence under sections 302/307 of the Indian Penal Code." (Para 113) > "Consequent to the aforesaid, this Court, hereby, held appellants guilty for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. and sentence them for the period already undergone by them." (Para 114)

The appellants, who had been on bail since March 18, 1996, were discharged from their bail bonds.

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment underscores the necessity for the prosecution to frame precise charges, particularly invoking Section 34 IPC if vicarious liability for a common intention is alleged. It also highlights the judiciary's role in meticulously examining the specific acts attributable to each accused to ensure that convictions, especially for grave offences like murder, are based on proof beyond all reasonable doubt for each individual's role. The decision also reiterates the principle that where evidence is ambiguous regarding the specific author of a grievous injury, the benefit of the doubt must accrue to the accused.