Jharkhand High Court
Sk. Habib vs The State Of Jharkhand on 29 July, 2026
2026:JHHC:22499
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 1084 of 2005
[Against the Judgment of conviction dated 24.08.2005 and Order of
sentence dated 27.08.2005, passed by learned 1st Additional
Sessions Judge, Godda, in Sessions Case No. 120 of 199 8 / 08 of
2004 ].
1. Sk. Habib, son of Sk. Olobi.
2. Sk. Nazir, son of Sk. Panchu.
3. Sk. Safique, son of Sk. Subhani.
4. Sk. Kalim, son of Sk. Subhani.
5. Sk. Rafique, son of Sk. Subhani.
6. Sk. Sarif, son of Sk. Subhani.
All resident of Village - Ramkol, P.S. -
Mahgama, District - Godda.
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
.....
For the Appellants : Mrs. VAni Kumari, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mrs. Mohua Palit, A.P.P.
.....
P R E S E N T
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on 18.06.2026 Pronounced on 29.07.2026
1. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention here that
during pendency of this appeal, appellant no. 1 Sk.
Hajwa and appellant no. 4 Sk. Subhani have died and
the appeal on their behalf was abated in terms of
order dated 24.02.2025. Surviving appellants are
hereby re-numbered.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The instant Criminal Appeal is directed against the
judgment of conviction dated 24.08.2005 and order of
sentence dated 27.08.2005 passed by learned 1st
Additional Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Case
1
2026:JHHC:22499
No. 120 of 1998 / 08 of 2004, whereby and
whereunder, the appellants have been held guilty for
the offence under Sections 147 and 307/149 of the
I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six years
along with fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under
Sections 307/149 of I.P.C. and R.I. for one year for
the offence under Section 147 of I.P.C. with default
stipulation. Both the sentences were directed to run
concurrently.
FACTUAL MATRIX
4. The prosecution story, as per fardbeyan of the
informant, Md. Idrish, is that the informant has
recently brought a pump set from his father-in-law
and the motor was found defective. Hence, on
10.11.2006 at about 7:00 A.M., the informant along
with Sk. Sattar were going to call a mechanic for
repair of the pump and reached near Tati Tola, where
Sk. Hajuwa armed with maskat, Ayub and Doctor
Mojib armed with gun, Sarif armed with masket and
Nazir armed with lathi and Khanti along with Subhani
and his three sons and one Gohar along with 30-40
Muslims surrounded him. It is alleged that Ayub
exploded a bomb, as a result of which, the informant
sustained injuries on his head and fell down.
Thereafter, above accused persons lifted him and
brought towards eastern bandh of Village, where other
2
2026:JHHC:22499
persons of mob were saying to chop his neck and
some were saying that he is innocent and advised to
release him, but the accused Sarif caught hold of the
hand of the informant and accused Ayub chopped of
his right hand with a gadasa and threw it in the
water. Thereafter, Sarif caught hold of hand of Sattar
and Ayub chopped of right hand of Sattar. Thereafter,
these persons took out chopped off hand of the
informant from the water and took both chopped
hands to somewhere. Sattar was lying in the paddy
field where Habib Dahiar came and told that Sattar
was still alive and started striking to Sattar with
bahngi, causing injury on his head and hand. The
motive behind the occurrence is alleged to be land
dispute between father-in-law of the informant and
maternal grandfather of Ayub.
5. On the basis of above information, FIR being
Mahgama P.S. Case No. 123 of 1996 was registered
against the appellants for the offence under Sections
147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 326, 307 and 436/34 of the
I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act.
6. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was
submitted against the accused persons. Md. Ayub
died prior to submission of the charge-sheet. After
taking cognizance of the offence, the learned
Magistrate committed the case to the Court of
3
2026:JHHC:22499
Sessions. The charges were framed and read over and
explained to the accused persons, to which, they
denied from the charges and claimed to be tried.
7. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined
altogether 10 witnesses and also adduced following
documentary evidence:-
Exhibit-1 : Injury Report of injured Md.
Idrish.
Exhibit-1/1 : Injury Report of injured Md.
Sattar.
Exhibit-2 : Fardbeyan.
Exhibit-3 : Formal F.I.R.
8. The case of defence is that appellants are innocent
and have falsely been implicated in the case. The
further case of the defence is that Sk. Idrish and
Sattar are veteran criminal and against them several
criminal cases are pending. No oral evidence has
been adduced by the defence. However, defence has
adduced certified copies of charge sheets, three
certified copies of order sheets and two sheets of
certified copies of the charges framed in courts, which
have been marked Exhibit-A/1, A/2, A/3, A/4, B,
B/1, B/2, B/3, C and C/1 respectively.
9. The learned trial court, after considering the oral as
well as documentary evidence available on record,
4
2026:JHHC:22499acquitted the appellants for the offence under Section
436 of the I.P.C. and Sections 3 / 4 of the Explosive
Substance Act, rather found guilty for the offence
under Sections 147 and 307/149 of the I.P.C. and
sentenced them as stated above.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants assailing the
impugned judgment has contended that except the
injured persons Md. Sattar and informant, there is no
eye-witness of the occurrence to corroborate the
prosecution story. There are material contradictions
and discrepancies in the evidence of informant and
another injured Md. Sattar, which has totally
displaced the contents contained in the F.I.R. It is
further submitted that even if the entire evidence of
injured persons in the light of their injury report
proved by Doctor (P.W.-8) is taken to be true on its
face value, no offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. is
constituted. Admittedly, there was eight accused
persons executed the commission of offence allegedly
armed with various lethal weapons, but only hands of
the informant and one Sattar have been chopped
during the occurrence. If the accused persons had
intention to commit murder of the injured persons,
there was no intervening circumstance to prevent
them from causing murder even assaulting on vital
part of body like head and neck by sharp cutting
5
2026:JHHC:22499weapon, but the same has not been done by the
appellants.
11. It is further submitted that some cases have been
lodged by the accused persons against the informant
party of this case, wherein charge sheet has been
submitted against Sk. Idrish as well as Sk. Sattar.
12. It is further submitted that the main allegation of
chopping hands of the injured persons namely, Md.
Idrish and Sk. Sattar is leveled against Ayub only,
who has died even before submission of charge sheet
in this case. Rest of the appellants has been simply
dragged in this case on account of alleged land
dispute between the parties.
13. It is further submitted that no specific overt act has
been attributed against the live appellants namely,
Sk. Habib, Sk. Nazir, Sk. Safique, Sk. Kalim, Sk.
Rafique and Sk. Sarif. There is simple allegation
against Sk. Sarif that he caught hold of the injured
persons, while Md. Ayub chopped of their hands and
against Sk. Habib, there was allegation of assault to
Satter on the head and hand, after chopping of his
hand by Md. Ayub, but no such injury was found in
the injury report of Md. Sattar.
14. It is further submitted that there is no whisper in the
judgment passed by the learned trial court as to what
6
2026:JHHC:22499
was the common object of the appellants in
prosecution of which the alleged occurrence took
place. Therefore, the conviction of the other appellants
with the aid of the Section 149 of the I.P.C. is
absolutely unwarranted and illegal. Therefore, the
appellants deserve to be acquitted from the charges
leveled against them for the offence under Sections
307/149 of the I.P.C.
15. The learned trial court itself after considering the
entire gamut of evidence has acquitted the appellants
for the charge under Section 436 of the I.P.C. and
Section 3 / 4 of the Explosive Substance Act.
Therefore, this appeal may be allowed.
16. On the other hand, learned APP appearing for the
State has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of
the appellants and defended the impugned judgment
and order on merits.
17. I have gone through the record the case along with
impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence of the appellants in the light of contentions
raised on behalf of both side.
18. Before imparting my judgment, it would be apposite to
take brief resume of prosecution evidence.
19. It appears that altogether 10 witnesses have been
examined in this case, out of which P.W.-3 Manogi
7
2026:JHHC:22499
Paswan, P.W.-4 Sk. Ajhar, P.W.-5 Md. Israfil and
P.W.-6 Ram Vilah Paswan turned hostile by the
prosecution.
20. P.W.-1 Koko Devi. She has deposed that about five
years ago, she was in her house. She has further
deposed that Sarif, Habib, Kalim and Safique chopped
off the hand of Idrish and also chopped the hand of
one other person, whose name she could not
remember. She further deposed that after chopping
hands of Idrish, Sarif and others torched her house,
as a result of which, her entire house was burnt. Six
accused persons were present on the day of her
examination, but she could only identify Sarif and she
could not identify other accused persons in the dock.
21. P.W.-2 Sk. Sattar @ Billo. He is one of the injured
witness. He has deposed that about six years ago at
about 7-8 A.M. he was going Narayanpur from
Bishnupur along with Idrish and when he reached
near Tanti Tola of Pamkol, he saw the villagers armed
with gun masket etc. in number about 150-200, out
of whom, he identified Ayub, Gohar, Kirani, Hajuwa
and other persons, but he does not remember the
name of some persons. He further deposed that Gohar
Kirani put towel on his neck and got him fell down by
pulling towel and then Sarif Gohar and all the
8
2026:JHHC:22499
accused jointly pressed him and Ayub chopped off his
right hand with a gadasa and thereafter, they left
him. He further deposed that after half an hour
Hajuwa came and again assaulted him with a
Bahangi. He further deposed that accused persons
had also chopped off the hand of Idrish.
22. P.W.-7 Sk. Samsul. He has deposed he has heard
about the occurrence from the other person and he
did not see the occurrence.
23. P.W.-8 Dr. Uchit Lal Mandal. He has deposed that on
10.11.1996, he was posed at P.H.C. Mahgama under
district Godda and on that day at 6:00 P.M., he
examined Md. Idrish and found following injuries on
his person :-
(i) Chopped of injury at the level of right elbow joint
with profuse bleeding and loss of distal part of
the limb.
(ii) Lacerated wound 2″ x 1/8″ x skin deep on the
right parietal region of the scalp 3″ of right of the
mid line.
According to his opinion, the injury no. 1 is
grievous in nature, caused by sharp cutting
heavy weapon and injury no. 2 is simple in
nature, caused by hard and blunt substance
within 12 hours. He has proved the injury report,
9
2026:JHHC:22499
marked as Exhibit-1.
He has further deposed that on the same day at
6:15 P.M., he examined Md. Sattar and found
following:-
(i) Chopped off injury at the level of lower part of
right upper arm with profuse bleeding and loss of
distal part of the limb.
(ii) A scratch on the nose.
(iii) A scratch on the right eye brow.
According to his opinion, Injury No. 1 is
grievous caused by sharp cutting heavy weapon
and injury nos. 2 and 3 are simple in nature,
caused by hard and blunt substance. He has
proved the injury report of Md. Sattar, marked
Exhibit-1/1.
24. P.W.-9 Mr. Idrish is the informant and one of the
injured witnesses of this case. He has deposed that in
the month of November in the year 1996 on Sunday,
he was going to Narayanpur from his sasural
Ghutiyani for calling a pumping set repairer and at
about 7:30 – 8:00 A.M. in the morning when he
reached near Tanti Tola of Village Ramkol, he saw 30-
40 persons assembled with arms. Out of whom he
identified nine persons namely, Ayub, Sk. Sarif,
Hajuwa, Nazir, Subhani, three sons of Subhani and
10
2026:JHHC:22499
Gohar. He deposed that the accused exploded a bomb
on him, as a result of which, he fell down and then
Sarif caught hold him and other eight accused
persons rod on his chest and on leg and Ayub doctor
chopped off his right hand with gadasa and threw the
chopped hand in water. He further deposed that then
all the accused persons chopped of the hand of
Sattar. He further deposed that Habib Dahiar came
there and said that still they were alive and then
Habib Dahiar started assaulting Sattar with a
Bahangi and broke his head and left hand and then
all accused fled away. He further deposed that there
was a long-standing dispute between his father-in-law
and the grandfather of Ayub, so the accused persons
assaulted him.
25. P.W.-10 Manikant Singh is a formal witness. He
identifies the hand writing and signature of Manjur
Ali, the then A.S.I. of Mangama Police Station in the
fardbeyan and also identifies the hand writing and
signature of the then Officer-in-Charge, Sri R.B.
Nanhe in the formal F.I.R. marked as Exhibit-3. The
fardbeyan has been marked as Exhibit-2.
26. Before imparting my judgment, it is pertinent to
mention the relevant provisions of law:-
307. Attempt to murder.–
11
2026:JHHC:22499
Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge,
and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused
death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine;
and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the
offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or
to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
Attempts by life convicts.– When any person offending
under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for
life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.
27. It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of Hari Singh Vs. Sukhbir Singh & Others, as
reported in (1988) 4 SCC 551, at para-7 that:-
“7. …………..Under Section 307 I.P.C. what the
court has to see is, whether the act irrespective
of is result, was done with the intention or
knowledge and under circumstances mentioned
in that section. The intention or knowledge of the
accused must be such as is necessary to
constitute murder. Without this ingredient being
established, there can be no offence of “attempt
to murder”. Under Section 307 the intention
precedes the act attributed to accused.
Therefore, the intention is to be gathered from all
circumstances, and not merely from the
consequence that ensue. The nature of the
weapon used, manner in which it is used, motive
for the crime, severity of the blow, the part of the
body where the injury is inflicted are some of the
factors that may be taken into consideration to
determine the intention.”
12
2026:JHHC:22499
28. It has also been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Jage Ram & Others Vs. State of Haryana,
as reported in (2015) 11 SCC 366, at para-12 that:-
“12. For the purpose of conviction under Section
307 IPC, prosecution has to establish (i) the
intention to commit murder and (ii) the act done
by the accused. The burden is on the
prosecution that accused had attempted to
commit the murder of the prosecution witness.
Whether the accused person intended to commit
murder of another person would depend upon
the facts and circumstances of each case. To
justify a conviction under Section 307 IPC, it is
not essential that fatal injury capable of causing
death should have been caused. Although the
nature of injury actually caused may be of
assistance in coming to a finding as to the
intention of the accused, such intention may
also be adduced from other circumstances. The
intention of the accused is to be gathered from
the circumstances like the nature of the weapon
used, words used by the accused at the time of
the incident, motive of the accused, parts of the
body where the injury was caused and the
nature of injury and severity of the blows given
etc.”
29. From recapitulating the entire evidences available on
record, it appears that there is severance of hands of
both injured persons, but there is no opinion of the
conducting Medical Officer that above injuries were
likely to cause death or dangerous to life. It appears
that although the charge were framed for the offence
13
2026:JHHC:22499
under Sections 147, 307/149 and 436 of the I.P.C.
and Section 3 / 4 of the Explosive Substance Act, but
the learned trial court considering the gravity of
offence wrongly assumed that the said injuries were
inflicted with intention to kill the injured persons or to
knowledge that such injury in all probability may
cause death of the injured persons and therefore the
trial court has wrongly convicted the appellants under
Sections 307 of the I.P.C.
30. For constituting the offence under Section 307 of the
I.P.C., the Court has to see, whether the act
irrespective of its result, was done with the intention
or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in
the Section 300 of the I.P.C.
31. In the instance case, the grievous injuries sustained
by injured persons are found not on the vital part of
the body and the injuries caused to the informant and
Sk. Sattar appear to be happened in sudden manner
without any intention to kill the injured persons or
the knowledge as required to constitute offence of
murder under Section 300 of the I.P.C. It is also trite
that the intention of the accused can be ascertained
from the actual injury, if any, as well as from
surrounding circumstances. Among other things, the
nature of the weapon used and the severity of the
blows inflected can be considered to infer intention.
14
2026:JHHC:22499
32. There were eight accused persons executed the
commission of offence allegedly armed with various
lethal weapons, but only hands of the informant and
one Sattar have been chopped during the occurrence.
If the accused persons had intention to commit
murder of the injured persons, there was no
intervening circumstance to prevent them from
causing murder even assaulting on vital part of body
like head and neck by sharp cutting weapon, but the
same has not been done by the appellants.
33. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the
case and submissions of learned counsel for the
parties, I am of the considered view that conviction
and sentence of the appellants for the offence
under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is not sustainable
and justified under law, which is hereby set aside.
However, from the facts of the case, the offence under
Section 326 of the I.P.C. is made out.
34. The relevant provision of Section 326 of the I.P.C.
reads as under:-
326. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous
weapons or means–
Whoever, except in the case provided for by section
335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means of any
instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any
15
2026:JHHC:22499
instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to
cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance,
or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or
by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any
substance which it is deleterious to the human body to
inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by
means of any animal, shall be punished with
imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and
shall also be liable to fine.
35. Further the main allegation of chopping of the hands
of both the injured is levelled against Md. Ayub only,
to whom accused Sarif had facilitated. Md. Ayub had
died before filing of charge sheet, hence, only Sarif
(since he had facilitated the Md. Ayub in chopping of
the hands of both the injured) is guilty for the offence
under Section 326 of I.P.C. As regards to the
involvement of other accused persons is concerned,
the prosecution had failed to prove any overt act by
other accused persons that they have a common
object in chopping of the hands of injured persons.
Both the injured witnesses had not deposed in their
evidence that any of the accused persons had
facilitated in crime or had committed any overt act
except Md. Ayub and Sk. Sarif. Therefore, except Sk.
16
2026:JHHC:22499
Sarif all the accused persons are not guilty for the
offence and liable to be acquitted.
36. Therefore, considering the overall aspect of the
case, the appellants namely, Sk. Habib, Sk. Nazir,
Sk. Safique, Sk. Kalim and Sk. Rafique are
acquitted from the charges leveled against them.
37. This Court further finds in the background of the
evidence available in this case, offences under Section
326 of the I.P.C. is constituted only against the
appellant namely, Sk. Sarif, as there is direct
allegation against Sk. Sarif that he caught hold of
both the injured then other co-accused Md. Ayub
(since deceased) severed their hands by inflicting
gadasa blow. It was not possible for the co-accused
Md. Ayub (since deceased) in severance of hands of
the injured unless and until their hands were caught
by the Sk. Sarif to facilitate the commission of above
offence. Therefore, the accused appellant Sk. Sarif
is guilty for the offence under Section 326 of I.P.C.
38. So far sentence awarded to Sk. Sarif is concerned, I
do not find any interference in the sentence which is
awarded to the appellant by the learned trial court for
the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. is maintained
for the offence under Section 326 of I.P.C.
39. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed.
17
2026:JHHC:22499
40. The appellant Sk. Sarif is on bail. His bail bond is
hereby cancelled.
41. The appellant – Sk. Sarif is directed to surrender
before the concerned Trial Court within two months
from the date of this judgment and receive the
remaining sentence awarded by the learned Trial
Court and undergo the remaining period of
imprisonment, failing which, the learned Trial Court
shall take all coercive steps in securing the
attendance of the appellant-Sk. Sarif and sending him
under proper conviction warrant to jail custody for
undergoing the remaining period of sentence awarded
to him.
42. Pending I.A., if any, stand disposed of.
43. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court
record be sent back to the court concerned for
information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated, the 29 t h July, 2026.
Sunil / N.A.F.R.
Uploaded on 30/07/2026
18
