Jharkhand High Court
Shankar Manjhi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 29 July, 2026
2026:JHHC:22508
IN THE HIGH COURT OFJHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 857 of 2005
---------
[Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.07.2005 &
13.07.2005 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Bokaro in
S.T. No. 57 of 2004.]
---------
1. Shankar Manjhi
2. Arjun Manjhi @ Arjun Kumhar
Both are Sons of Habu Kumar Manjhi.
3. Gunadhar Manjhi, son of late Makhan Manjhi
4. Amar Manjhi, son of Gouri Manjhi
5. Durga Charan Manjhi, son of Gouri Manjhi
6. Sapan Manjhi, son of Gouri Manjhi
7. Ananta Manjhi, son of late Dhomu Manjhi,
All are residents of Village- Pipar Kudar, P.S.- Chandankiyari, Dist.-
Bokaro. ......Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Respondent
---------
PRESENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
---------
For the Appellants : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, A.P.P.
For the informant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
-----------
JUDGMENT
CAV On: 02nd July, 2026 Pronounced On: 29/07/2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.P.P. as well as
learned counsel appearing for the informant.
2. Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order
of conviction and sentence dated 12.07.2005 / 13.07.2005 passed by the
learned Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Bokaro in S.T. Case No. 57 of
2004, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for
the offences punishable under Sections 147, 436, 307/149 of the I.P.C.
and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 for the offence under Section
307/149 of the I.P.C.; R.I. for 5 years under section 436/149 I.P.C. and
R.I. for two years under Section 147 I.P.C. alongwith the fine of Rs.
500/- each with default stipulation.
Factual Matrix:-
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 18.08.2003 at
about 2:00 P.M., the informant alongwith his brother was taking lunch
in his house. In the meantime, accused Santosh Manjhi, Shankar
Manjhi, Ranjit Manjhi, Arjun Manjhi, Sitaram Manjhi, Gunadhar
Manjhi, Ananta Manjhi, Bhagirath Manjhi, Meghan Manjhi, Amar
Manjhi, Durgacharan Manjhi, Sapan Manjhi and Biru Manjhi
surrounded his house and set fire in the house of Ashwini Manjhi. It is
further alleged that Santosh Manjhi caught hold of Ashwini Manjhi and
Ananta Manjhi assaulted him by spade on his head due to which, he
became unconscious. Then, the accused tried to catch informant also but
he climbed on the roof of the house and closed the iron grill and saved
himself. Thereafter, the accused persons fled away. The motive behind
the occurrence was previous litigation between the parties in G.R. Case
No. 648/1997, which was still pending in the Court and the accused
persons were compelling the informant parties to compromise or
withdraw the said case, to which they had declined.
4. On the basis of above information of the informant, F.I.R. being
Chandankiyari P.S. Case No. 79 of 2003 dated 18.08.2003 was
registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 436, 452, 307 &
326 of the I.P.C.
5. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted
against 8 accused persons and after taking cognizance, the case was
committed to the court of Sessions, where S.T No. 57 of 2004 was
registered.
2|Page
6. The appellants have denied the charge levelled against them and
claimed to be tried.
7. In the course of trial, altogether 9 witnesses were examined by the
prosecution apart from following documentary evidence:-
I. Exhibit-1: Fardbeyan
II. Exhibit-2: Injury report
III. Exhibit-3: Seizure list
IV. Exhibit-4 – 4/2: three sheets of C.T. Scan report
V. Exhibit-5 – 5/3 : Four sheets of prescriptions
8. On the other hand, the defence has also examined two witnesses,
namely, DW-1 Bishwajeet Patra and DW-2 Dr. Akhilesh Sharma and
also proved Ext.- A: Certificate issued by DW-1, Ext.-B to B/1:
prescription written by Dr. Akhilesh Sharma and certificate given by
him; Ext.-C: certified copy of final report laid down in the Court against
the accused Bhagirath Manjhi, Santosh Manjhi, Ranjeet Manjhi,
Sitaram Manjhi and Biru Manjhi.
9. The learned Trial Court after scrutinizing the evidence oral as well
as documentary led by the respective parties, arrived at definite
conclusion about the guilt of the appellants for the aforesaid offences
and sentenced them accordingly as stated above, which has been
assailed in this appeal.
Submission on behalf of appellants:-
10. Assailing the impugned judgment, the learned counsel for the
appellants has vehemently argued that the most important witness of
this case is PW-5 injured Ashwini Manjhi, who has specifically stated
about the overt act by Santosh Manjhi who caught hold of him and
spade blow was given to him by accused Ananta Manjhi (Appellant no.-
3|Page
7). No specific overt act has been attributed against any other of the
appellants. The common object of all the appellants is stated to be
setting fire in the house of the informant’s brother-cum-injured of this
case and it is not proved conclusively that house of the injured was
burnt. The investigating officer has also not collected any burn articles
or noticed anything at the place of occurrence showing that the house of
injured Ashwini Manjhi was set on fire. Therefore, the very common
object is not proved in this case. Hence, the other appellants cannot be
attributed with common object for assaulting the informant’s brother. At
the spur of moment, Santosh Manjhi and Ananta Manjhi might have
formed common intention to assault the informant’s brother and spade
blow was given only by Ananta Manjhi, for which other appellants
cannot be made responsible with the aid of Section 149 of the I.P.C. It is
further submitted that the investigating office has admitted in his
evidence that no food grains, clothes or other property kept in the house
were found burnt and these articles were not produced during trial,
hence, the charge under Section 436 I.P.C. has not been proved beyond
doubt against the accused persons. The learned Trial Court has failed to
record any findings as regards formation of any unlawful assembly by
the appellants with any specific object, in prosecution of which, they
acted in concerted manner as defined under Section 141 I.P.C.
Therefore, conviction for the offence under Section 147 and for other
substantive offence with aid of Section 149 is not justified under law. It
is further submitted that no independent local villagers have
corroborated the prosecution story regarding setting fire in the house of
the informant’s brother by the accused persons. The injured has also
sustained a single blow injury by spade on his head on the spur of
4|Page
moment and he had undergone treatment for approx one month. The
nature of injury though has been opined to be grievous in nature, but
required intention and knowledge to constitute the offence under
Section 307 is absolutely lacking in this case. The nature of injury
sustained by brother of the informant through single spade blow clearly
indicates that it is grievous in nature caused by hard and sharp cutting
weapon, therefore, falls under Section 326 of the I.P.C., that is only
against appellant no. 7. The appellant nos. 1-6 deserve acquittal from
the charges levelled against them and their conviction and sentence is
absolutely illegal and based upon improper appreciation of evidence
available on record.
In the alternative, it is argued that the occurrence took place in the
year 2003 and there was previous dispute in terms of litigation between
the parties, which furnished motive for the occurrence. The appellant
no. 7 Ananta Manjhi has assaulted the injured, who is aged about 59
years as per his Aadhar and other appellants are also aged between 60-
70 years except appellant no. 2. One accused namely Meghnath Manjhi
has died during the pendency of this appeal. The fine amount has been
deposited before the concerned learned Trial Court. It is the first offence
of the appellant and they have no criminal background. Hence, instead
of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment to the appellant no. 7,
he may be extended the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958.
Submission on behalf of State:-
11. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised by
learned counsel for the appellants and defending the impugned
judgment has submitted that the learned Trial Court has very wisely and
5|Page
aptly considered the overall aspects of the case and the testimony ofocular witnesses, who have categorically proved the charges levelled
against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. The appellants
forming an unlawful assembly have acted in concerted manner in
execution of their common object to give murderous assault to Ashwini
Manjhi and they also set fire in the house causing damages to his
property. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned
judgment, which suffers from no illegality or infirmity. This appeal is
devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed.
Analysis, Reasons and Decision:-
12. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned
judgment and order in the light of the contentions raised on behalf of
both side.
13. The only point for consideration in this appeal is, as to whether the
impugned judgment of conviction and sentence suffers from any serious
error or law calling for any interference or not?
14. Before adjudicating the above point, it is pertinent to apprise with
the testimony of the witnesses examined during trial.
PW-1 Naveen Manjhi is nephew of injured Ashwini Manjhi.
According to his evidence, he was studying on the roof of his house on
18.08.2003 at about 1:30 to 2:00. He saw that Ananta Manjhi, Bhagirath
Manjhi, Gunadhar Manjhi, Sitaram Manjhi, Ranjeet Manjhi, Arjun
Manjhi, Shankar Manjhi, Meghan Manjhi, Biru Manjhi, Durga Manjhi,
Amar Manjhi, Sapan Manjhi, Santosh Manjhi armed with lathi and
spade surrounded the house of his elder father Ashwini Manjhi from
three sides and set fire in the house. When Ashwini Manjhi started to
flee away, Santosh Manjhi caught hold of him and Ananta Manjhi gave
6|Page
spade blow on his head due to which he fell down. The accused persons
also rushed towards Mantu Manjhi but he closed the gate and climbed
over the roof of his house and saved himself. The motive behind the
occurrence was pending criminal case between the parties, to which the
accused persons were pressurizing to compromise or withdraw the case,
which was denied by the informant party. This witness has been
examined at length.
He admits in his cross-examination that accused Santosh Manjhi is
in government service at Pathardih but he does not know where he
works. He has denied the suggestion of defence that Bhagirath Manjhi,
Ranjeet Manjhi, Biru Manjhi and Sitaram Manjhi were not present in
the village at the relevant date and time of occurrence and their names
have been given due to previous enmity.
PW-2 Kuber Manjhi is the son of injured Ashwini Manjhi. He has
stated that the accused persons armed with lathi and farsa, surrounded
his house from three corners and set fire in the house. His father went
out from the house, then Santosh Manjhi caught hold of his father and
Ananta Manjhi gave farsa. His uncle save himself by closing the gate
and climbed over the roof of the house.
This witness also retrains in his cross-examination that he himself
has seen the occurrence. He further admits that western side of the
house made of phus was burnt to ashes. His father was admitted to
Chandankiyari hospital, where he got treatment. This witness has denied
the suggestion of defence that due to previous enmity, his uncle and
father have falsely implicated the accused persons.
PW-3 Subhadra Devi is wife of the informant. She has also
claimed to be eye witness of the occurrence. She has also stated the
7|Page
name of all the accused persons, who set fire in the house of Ashwini
Manjhi and also rushed towards her husband for assaulting him but he
saved himself by closing the door and climbing over the roof of the
house. Previous pendency of a case is the motive behind the occurrence.
There is nothing in her cross-examination to rebut the aforesaid
testimony.
PW-4 Gandhari Devi has also stated that the accused persons
surrounded the house of her Bhaisur, Ashwini Manjhi and set on fire.
Her Bhaisur was assaulted by Tangi blow given by Ananta Manjhi
while Santosh Manjhi caught hold of him. The occurrence took place
due to previous pendency of a case between the parties.
In her cross-examination, she has admitted that she does not know
as to which side of the house was set on fire. She has also stated that
paddy, rice, clothes and bed sheets were burnt and seizure list was
prepared by the police but she has not signed on the aforesaid list as it
was not prepared in her presence.
PW-5 Ashwini Manjhi is the sole injured in this case. According
to his evidence, on 18.08.2003 at about 1:30 to 2:00 P.M., he was taking
lunch in his house and his wife and sons were also present. In the
meantime, his house was surrounded by accused persons, namely,
Santosh Manjhi, Ranjeet manjhi, Arjun Manjhi, Sitaram Manjhi,
Gunadhar Manjhi, Meghan Manjhi, Bhagirath Manjhi, Shankar Manjhi,
Ananta Manjhi, Amar Manjhi, Durga Charan Manjhi, Sapan Manjhi and
Biru Manjhi, who set on fire from three sides of his house. Due to fear,
he fled away towards the house of his brother Mantu Manjhi but in the
way, he was caught hold by Santosh Manjhi and Ananta Manjhi gave a
spade blow on his head due to which he fell down and became
8|Page
unconscious. He has also shown cut mark of his injuries on head during
his evidence. This witness has further stated that he regained
consciousness after 20-22 days at Bokaro General Hospital. Still his
treatment is going on and he visits the doctor in each month. He further
states that a case was earlier lodged against the accused persons, which
is still pending and the accused persons were pressurizing him to
withdraw or compromise the earlier case, to which he declined, then this
occurrence took place.
He also reiterates in his cross-examination that due to fire set on his
house, household utensils, clothes, food grains were burnt alongwith
door of the house and other articles. Seizure list of burnt materials were
prepared by the police. This witness has been examined at length but
nothing has been elicited by defence to rebut his aforesaid testimony.
He has denied the suggestion of defence that due to fall from roof of his
house, he has sustained his injuries and due to previous enmity,
involved the accused Ananta Manjhi for assaulting him and setting on
fire of his house.
PW-6 Mantu Manjhi has also constantly corroborated is earliest
version contained in his written report and stated that on 18.08.2003 at
about 2:00 P.M., he was in front of his door and his brother Aswini
Manjhi was taking lunch. Suddenly, his co-villagers, namely, Santosh
Manjhi, Ranjeet manjhi, Arjun Manjhi, Sitaram Manjhi, Gunadhar
Manjhi, Meghan Manjhi, Bhagirath Manjhi, Shankar Manjhi, Ananta
Manjhi, Amar Manjhi, Durga Charan Manjhi, Sapan Manjhi and Biru
Manjhi surrounded house of his brother Aswini Majhi and set on fire.
When his brother was fleeing away and reached towards the door of this
witness, in the meantime, Santosh Manjhi caught hold of him and
9|Page
Ananta Manjhi gave spade blow on his head due to which he became
unconscious. The accused persons also rushed towards him for
assaulting but he managed to flee away, closed the gate and climbed on
the roof of his house. The reason of the occurrence is that in the year
1997, brother of this witness had lodged a case of assault against the
accused persons bearing G.R. Case No. 648/1997, which was pending in
the Court of Judicial Magistrate an the accused persons were putting
pressure for withdrawal or compromise on the above case but his
brother declined and in protest, this occurrence took place. His brother
was sent to BGH for better treatment where S.I. Mandan Paswan
arrived, his fardbeyan was recorded, over which he has proved his
signature as Ext.-1. He also went alongwith the police to the place of
occurrence from where the police seized blood stained soil and remains
of burnt house of his brother. His brother got treatment about 22 days at
BGH by supply of oxygen. Thereafter, about one week, he also got
treated and still his treatment is going on by visiting the doctor in each
month.
This witness has been cross-examined in detailed but reiterated the
aforesaid story and there is nothing in his cross-examination to rebut his
aforesaid testimony or disbelieve his evidence.
PW-7 Dr. Prabhat has proved injury report of injured Ashwini
Manjhi, who was examined by him on 18.08.2003 at Bokaro General
Hospital and found following injuries:-
I. Lacerated wound scalp 6″ x 1″ x 1″.
Nature of injury was grievous caused by sharp edged weapon
of less than two hours. Injury report is marked Ext.-2.
10 | P a g e
He has further stated that the patient was referred to Dr. N.K. Das forNeurological treatment.
In his cross-examination, he has stated that lacerated wound is
caused by hard and blunt object and incised wound was is caused by
sharp edge weapon.
PW-8 S.I. Madan Paswan is the investigating officer of this case.
He has also recorded fardbeyan of the informant Mantu Manjhi (PW-6)
at Bokaro General Hospital which is Ext.-1. Fardbeyan was sent to
Chandankiyari P.S. for registration of the case. He assumed charge of
investigation and recorded re-statement of the informant. Since injured
was unconscious at that time, hence, he could not take his statement. He
went to the place of occurrence, where he recorded statement of
witnesses namely Subhadra Devi, Gandhari Devi, Kuber Manjhi, Naveen
Manjhi and Janardhan Manjhi and inspected the place of occurrence. The
place of occurrence of this case is mud tiled roof house of Ashwini
Manjhi comprising one courtyard. Towards east, there is house of Pravir
Manjhi. He found the house of Ashwini Manjhi was burnt. He also
noticed that injured at the time of occurrence was taking lunch and food
articles were scattered from plate. The second place of occurrence of this
case is southern door, house of Mantu Manjhi (informant), where the
injured had rushed for saving himself but he was caught hold by Santosh
Manjhi and Ananta Manjhi gave spade blow on his head. He also noticed
huge quantity of blood at the place of occurrence. He seized blood
stained soil, burnt particles, ashes and half burnt bamboo, etc. from the
place of occurrence in the presence of witnesses namely Dhelu Manjhi
and Baliram Manjhi. He has proved seizure list as Ext.-3. Thereafter, he
recorded statement of witness Bibhishan Manjhi and also arrested the
11 | P a g e
accused Bhagirath Manjhi and further interrogated witnesses namely,
Guhi Ram Manjhi, Ishwar Manjhi, Duryodhan Manjhi, Gambhir Manjhi,
Subodh Manjhi and Ashok Manjhi. He also went to Bokaro General
Hospital on 26.08.2003 but the injured Ashwini Manjhi was fighting
between death and life and was put under oxygen supply. He has
recorded the statement of injured Ashwini Manjhi on 25.03.2004. He has
also interrogated with independent witnesses, namely, Nepal Manjhi,
Prem Manjhi, Taniram Manjhi, Lakhan Manjhi and Nimai Manjhi.
In his cross-examination, he states that after completion of
investigation, he found no sufficient evidence against the accused
persons, namely, Bhagirath Manjhi, Ranjeet Manjhi, Santosh Manjhi,
Sitaram Manjhi and Biru Manjhi and they were not sent up for trial. He
further admits that injured Ashwini Manjhi has not stated before him that
when he was taking lunch, his son and wife were present in the house
with him. He has also not mentioned in the Case Diary whether any
villagers had come to extinguish the fire set in the house of the injured.
He has not recorded the statement of any independent eye witnesses of
the occurrence. He has also not seized any burn house article or food
grain or utensils in burn or half burn condition from the place of
occurrence. He has also not mentioned in the Case Diary which part of
the house was burnt and how many portion of the house was burnt. He
has not seized blood stained clothes of the injured. He has denied the
suggestion of defence that his investigation is defective and he has not
properly investigated the case and without sufficient evidence he has
submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons.
PW-9 Dr. Narendra Kumar Das is the head of Neurosurgery
Department at Bokaro General Hospital. He treated the injured Ashwini
12 | P a g e
Kumar, who had, as per CT scan report, facture in the head and
haematoma in brain. Doctor has opined that if the patient was not treated
on time, he would have died. He found haemotoma with blood in right
parietal region with surrounding oedema and over lying fracture of
parietal bone. On 15.05.2004, CT scan was done, the report is Ext. 4/2,
which shows the recovery of the patient. The doctor found mixed density
lesion on the right fronto parietal cortex, all venticles and basal cisterns
normal, no mid line shift the bore window setting reveals fracture of
right fronto parietal bone.
15. On the other hand, defence has also examined two witnesses.
DW-1 Biswajeet Patro is the principal of Sardar Patel Public
School since 25.01.1999. He has proved the certificate issued in favor
Bhagirath Manjhi, rickshaw puller, who was on duty on 18.08.2003 and
after closing of school at about 1:50 P.M., he collected primary class
students and departed to their house till 3:10 P.M. The certificate is
marked Ext.- A.
DW-2 Dr. Akhilesh Sharan, medical officer at PHC, Baliapur, has
deposed that on 18.08.2003 at about 11:50 A.M., he had treated accused
Santos Kumhar, son of late Habu Kumhar at PHC Baliapur, who was
suffering from abdomen pain. He also prescribed some medicines and
issued prescription on the same day and proved his prescription dated
18.08.2003 as Ext.- B and certificate granted in favor of Santosh
Kumhar to Ext.- B/1.
16. I have given anxious consideration to the overall aspects of the case
and the material evidence available on record.
17. From the aforesaid discussion of ocular testimony of witnesses, it is
crystal clear that so far charge under Section 436 I.P.C. is concerned,
13 | P a g e
none of the witnesses has stated as to who has set on fire in the house of
Ashwini Manjhi (PW-5). The seized materials have also not been
brought on record as material exhibit rather seizure list simply shows
that some burnt bamboo and woods were seized. The investigating
officer has admitted in his evidence that he has not enquired with the
independent local witnesses and none of the witnesses have stated that
any person participated in extinguishing the fire set in the house of
injured Ashwini Manjhi. None of the neighbors have come forward to
state that how much portion of the house was burnt. Witness Kuber
Manjhi (PW-2) has stated that towards eastern side of house of injured
Ashwini Manjhi, some phus and straw were burnt but the injured
himself has failed to give particulars of the burnt articles like, bed, bed
sheets, wearing clothes, food grains, house hold utensils, etc. kept in the
dwelling house. This fact has also not been proved by the investigating
officer as to which portion of the house and to what extent, the house
was found burnt and what kind of properties were burnt. At this
juncture, it is relevant to extract the provision of Section 436 of the
I.P.C.
“Section 436-Mischief by fire or explosive substance with
intent to destroy house, etc.–Whoever commits mischief by fire
or any explosive substance, intending to cause, or knowing it to be
likely that he will thereby cause, the destruction of any building
which is ordinarily used as a place of worship or as a human
dwelling or as a place for the custody of property, 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.”
18. In the instant case, there is no concrete evidence available on record
to establish the ingredients of offence under Section 436 of the I.P.C.
14 | P a g e
The learned Trial Court has simply swayed upon one breath statement
of the witnesses about setting fire in the house of the injured and
without any further description. Therefore, the finding recorded by the
learned Trial Court recording the conviction of the appellants for the
offence under Section 436 I.P.C. is absolutely unwarranted under law
and appears to be beyond the weight of evidence available on record as
discussed above. Therefore, the conviction of all the appellants for the
offence under Section 436 of the I.P.C. is hereby set aside.
19. In order to prove an offence under section 307 of I.P.C. the
essential mensrea to constitute the said offence has to be proved.
Mensrea can be inferred from the kind of weapon used, nature of injury,
force used and part of body etc. The onus lies on the prosecution that
the accused has caused an act with intention or knowledge, and under
such circumstances that if by such act death was caused, he would be
guilty of murder.
In the instant case, the occurrence took place when the injured was
fleeing away from his house, accused Santosh Manjhi caught hold of
him and accused Ananta Manjhi (appellant no. 7) gave a spade blow on
his head due to which he sustained injury on his head. Dr. Prabhat (PW-
7) has examined the injured and opined the injury to be grievous in
nature. The injured Ashwini Manjhi was referred to Dr. N. K. Das
(PW-9) for neurological treatment, where the doctor opined that if the
injured had not come on time, he might have died. The appellant Ananta
Manjhi alone has inflicted spade blow. Injuries sustained by the injured
and manner of assault clearly indicates that the required intention or
knowledge for constituting the offence under section 307 of I.P.C is
15 | P a g e
proved. Therefore, conviction of the appellant Ananta Manjhi (appellant
no. 7) for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is affirmed.
20. So far the conviction of other appellants under Section 307 I.P.C.
with aid of Section 149 I.P.C. is concerned, it appears that in the
impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court has not whispered a single
line about formation of unlawful assembly by the accused persons and
what was their common object rather stretched upon gravity and nature
of injury sustained by the injured and the involvement of several
persons in executing the criminal act alleged in this case. The
observation in concluding para from last line of page 18 to page 19 of
the impugned judgment is as under:-
“……… It is not needed that all the member of unlawful assembly
should participated in assault to Ashwini, rather assault by Ananta
Manjhi to Ashwini Manjhi (PW-5) with farsa will be treated as
result of common object of all the members of that unlawful
assembly and the liabilities of act of Ananta Manjhi goes to other
accused also. There is no evidence to show that the accused have
entered in the residential house of either Ashwini (PW-5) or Mantu
(PW-6), so case under Section 452 I.P.C. against the accused in not
made out. It has come in evidence that there was a previous case
pending for trial and the accused were persuading the injured to
compromise the same. The accused denied so they have assaulted
him and also tried to assault Mantu (PW-6). In this case, the
witnesses examined are eye witness. The injury report of injured
Ashwini Manjhi is corroborated with the medical evidence on
record and there is no basis to disbelieve the prosecution evidence
in light of injury of Ashwini Manjhi (PW-5). The prosecution has
been able to prove the case against the accused persons under
Sections 147, 436 & 307/149 I.P.C.”
21. In the present case, though most of the witnesses have remained
consistent on the point of setting fire in the dwelling house of brother of
16 | P a g e
the informant but material collected during the investigation and
brought before the Court during trial as material evidence, does not
prove the commission of the offence under Section 436 I.P.C., hence, all
the appellants have been acquitted but none of the witnesses has stated
that whether the unlawful assembly was formed by the appellants for
assaulting the injured Ashwini Manjhi in such a manner likely to cause
death. None of the appellants except appellant no. 7 Ananta Manjhi
have played any role in assault of injured Ashwini Manjhi, even none of
the accused was holding any weapon. Hence, to bring the name of more
than five persons due to previous litigation, which is not corroborated
by the fact and circumstance as proved, cannot be said to be unlawful
assembly as defined under Section 141 unless the common object is
proved. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Zainul vs.
The State of Bihar reported in 2025 SCC OnLine 2152 has held that
mere physical presence at a crime scene does not automatically make
someone a member of an unlawful assembly under Section 149 I.P.C.
Therefore, the conviction of the other accused with aid of Section 149
I.P.C. is not proper. Hence, conviction of the appellant nos. 1-6 under
Section 307/149 is set aside.
22. So far Section 147 of the I.P.C. is concerned, since the prosecution
has failed to prove the formation of unlawful assembly as discussed
above, all the appellants are hereby also acquitted from the conviction
for the offence under Section 147 I.P.C.
23. In view of the above discussion and reasons, I find merits in this
appeal. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence
of the appellants except appellant no. 7 Ananta Manjhi passed by the
learned Trial Court is hereby set aside. The conviction and sentence
17 | P a g e
awarded to the appellant no. 7 Ananta Manjhi for the offence under
Section 307 of the I.P.C. is upheld.
24. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed.
25. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands disposed of.
26. All the appellants are on bail. As such, appellant nos. 1 to 6 are
discharged from liability of their bail bonds and sureties are also
discharged.
27. So far the appellant no. 7 Ananta Manjhi is concerned, his bail
bond is hereby cancelled. He 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,
failing which, the learned Trial Court shall take all coercive steps in
securing the attendance of the appellant and sending him under proper
conviction warrant to jail custody for undergoing the remaining period
of sentence awarded to him.
28. Let a copy of this judgment alongwith the trial Court records be
sent back immediately to the concerned Trial Court for information and
needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
Dated: 29/07/2026
Rahul- NAFR
Uploaded On: 30/07/2026
18 | P a g e
