LAB MANDAL ALIAS LAB KUMAR MANDAL ALIAS LAV KUMAR MANDAL vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

2026:JHHC:31367
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 718 of 2026
With
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 432 of 2026
-----
[ Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 15.04.2026
passed in Sessions Trial No. 112 of 2019 arising out of Pakur Muffasil P.S.
Case No. 98 of 2018, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 495 of 2018, by the
learned Sessions Judge, Pakur]

(In Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 718 of 2026)

Sanjay Mandal, aged about 46 years, son of Sudhir Mandal, resident of
Village- Gopinathpur, P.O.- Gandhaipur, P.S. Pakur(M), District- Pakur
--- --- Appellant

Versus

1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Sushila Mandal W/o Sudharshan Mandal, resident of Vill- Gopinathpur,
P.O- Pakur, P.S.-Pakur(M), District- Pakur
--- --- Respondents

(In Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 432 of 2026)

1.Lab Mandal @ Lab Kumar Mandal @ Lav Mandal, aged about 24 years,
son of Sanjay Mandal;
2.Sudhir Mandal, aged about 70 years, son of Late Piyari Mandal;
Both residents of Village- Gopinathpur, P.O.- Gandhaipur, P.S.- Pakur
(M), District- Pakur;
--- --- Appellants


Versus

1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Sushila Mandal W/o Sudharshan Mandal, resident of Vill- Gopinathpur,
P.O& P.S.-Pakur(M), District- Pakur, Jharkhand
--- --- Respondents
…....
For the Appellants : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P
For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. Sumit Gautam, Advocate
Mr. P.K. Mehta, Advocate
1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 718 of 2026
With

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 432 of 2016

2026:JHHC:31367

PRESENT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

J U D G M E N T

By Court
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.P.P.
representing the State and learned counsel for the Respondent no.2.
2. Both the appeals have been preferred by the co-convicts against
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 15.04.2026
passed in Sessions Trial No. 112 of 2019 arising out of Pakur Muffasil
P.S. Case No. 98 of 2018, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 495 of
2018, by the learned Sessions Judge, Pakur, whereby all the co-
convicts/appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable
under Sections 147,148,323/149,324/149,325/149 and 341/149 of the
IPC and further convict Sanjay Mandal has also been found guilty
under Section 326 of the IPC and all the convicts have been sentenced
to undergo R.I. for 1 year with a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and a default
sentence of R.I. for 1 month for the offence under Section 147 IPC;
R.I. for 2 years with a fine of Rs. 5000 each and a default sentence of
R.I. for 3 months for the offence under Section 148 of the IPC; R.I.
for 1 year for the offence under Section 323/149 of the IPC; R.I. for 2
years with a fine of Rs. 5000/- each and a default sentence of R.I. for
6 months for the offence under Section 324/149 of the IPC; R.I. for 3
years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and a default sentence of R.I.
for 6 months for the offence under Section 325/149 of the IPC; S.I. for
1 month under Section 341/149 of the IPC. Further convict Sanjay
Mandal has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years with a fine of
Rs. 10,000/- with a default sentence of R.I. for 6 months for the
offence under Section 326 of the IPC.
2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 718 of 2026
With

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 432 of 2016

2026:JHHC:31367
3 . The criminal law has been put into motion on lodging of the
written report by the informant namely Sushila Mandal before the
Officer-In-charge of Pakur(Muffasil) P.S. on 27.06.2018 being Pakur
(Muffasil) P.S. Case No.98 of 2018.
The brief story as per the informant is that on 27.06.2018 at
about 03:00 P.M. when she was sitting with her family members at
home, then suddenly, the accused persons namely Sanjay Mandal,
Sudhir Mandal, Lab Mandal, Rina Mandal, Biplabh Mandal armed
lathi, danda, rod attacked them with intent to kill. Biplabh Mandal
gave blow with rod on the head of Ashish Mandal due to which he
sustained injuries.It is also alleged that Sanjay Mandal stabbed
Sitanath Mandal's on his waist causing serious injury. It is further
alleged that when Jairam Mandal, Promila Mandal and Karjon Mandal
came for rescue, the accused persons also assaulted them with lathi,
danda and pelted bricks and stones on them.
4. On the basis of above written report, Pakur (Muffasil )P.S. Case
No-98/2018, was registered against the accused persons under
Sections 143, 149, 341, 324, 325, 326. 307 of the Indian Penal Code
and thereafter charge sheet was submitted. Accordingly, after finding
sufficient material to proceed with the case, cognizance of the offence
was taken and this case was committed to the court of session.
5. After completion of appearance of the accused persons, charges
under Sections 147, 148, 341/149, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149,
326/149, 307/149 and 504/149 Indian Penal Code were framed on
13.09.2019 to which they did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. The statements of accused persons were recorded under Section
313 of the Criminal Procedure Code on 23.11.2024, wherein the
incriminating evidence available on record was put forth to them and
in turn it was denied, pleading false implication and reiterating the
3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 718 of 2026
With

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 432 of 2016

2026:JHHC:31367
innocence.
7. To substantiate the prosecution story altogether ten witnesses
have been examined. Their brief statements are as follows:
I. P.W. 1 (Mori Mandal)- has claimed herself to be the
eyewitness to the occurrence and she has reiterated the story as
narrated in the F.I.R by the informant.
II. P.W. 2 (Maya Mandal) is a local person who has not supported
the prosecution case and has been declared hostile.
III. P.W. 3 (Sudhir Mandal) is also a local person who has not
supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile.
IV. P.W. 4 (Renuwala Mandal) has claimed herself to be the
eyewitness to the occurrence and she has reiterated the story as
narrated in the F.I.R by the informant. In para 6 of her cross
examination she has admitted that the accused persons have
lodged a counter case against them.
V. P.W. 5 (Sitanath Mandal) is an injured witness and he has
supported the prosecution case in tune with the informant and
has stated that accused persons armed with lathi etc. came to
the place of occurrence and assaulted them causing bodily
injuries. Sanjay Mandal assaulted him with rod on his head and
also assaulted with a knife on his waist due to which he became
unconscious and fell down on the ground. He was taken to
Sonajori Hospital for treatment whereafter he was sent to
Bhagalpur for further treatment. In his cross examination he has
admitted that the referral document of Sonajori Hospital was
taken by the hospital at Bhagalpur and therefore, he could not
submit those documents in the police station. He has denied the
suggestion that he has made forged injury report and therefore,
he did not submit the same before the police. He has also
4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 718 of 2026
With

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 432 of 2016

2026:JHHC:31367
denied the suggestion that he has deposed in the case to escape
himself from the counter case.
VI. P.W. 6 (Sushila Mandal)- being informant cum victim of the
case has deposed that the occurrence took place about 4½ years
ago at about 03:00 P.M. It is further deposed at that time when
she was talking with her son namely Ashish Mandal and taking
tea, then the accused persons came from Benigram and accused
Biplab Mandal struck on the head of her son Ashish Mandal,
causing bleeding injuries. There is specific testimony of this
witness that accused Sanjay Mandal stabbed Sitanath Mandal's
causing injuries to him. Thereafter, Lav Mandal assaulted her
and one Parmila Mandal with lathi and stones. It is further
deposed that the accused Sudhir Mandal assaulted Sudarshan
Mandal with lathi causing injury on his leg. Rina Mandal and
Sudhir Mandal assaulted with lathi and stone. It is further stated
that Sitanath Mandal and Ashish Mandal were treated at Sadar
Hospital and for better treatment they were sent to Bhagalpur.
During cross-examination, she has deposed that the injured
persons were referred from the local hospital to Bhagalpur
where the injured stayed for one month. She has also admitted
that the medical documents relating to the treatment at
Bhagalpur has not been submitted at the police station. She has
also admitted that the accused persons have also lodged a
counter case with respect to this incident. The accused persons
are her gotias. She has denied the suggestion that in collusion
with the doctor she has made a forged injury report and lodged
a false case.
VII. P.W. 7 (Ashish Mandal) is an injured witness and son of the
informant and he has supported the prosecution case in tune
5 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 718 of 2026
With

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 432 of 2016

2026:JHHC:31367
with the informant and stated that the accused persons armed
with lathi etc. came to the place of occurrence and assaulted
them causing bodily injuries due to which he became
unconscious and fell down on the ground. He was sent to
Bhagalpur after primary treatment at Sonajori Hospital for
better treatment. He has admitted the factum of enmity between
the parties.
VIII. P.W.8(Pramila Mandal)- is the wife of P.W.7 and she has also
reiterated the incident of assault upon the informant party
including her husband P.W.7 Ashish Mandal. She has deposed
that her husband was taken to Bhagalpur for better treatment.
IX. P.W.9 (Dr. Sanjay Kr. Jha)- has examined the injured at Sadar
Hospital, Pakur and found the following injuries:
Injured/Victim Description of injuries Nature Reference
Stab wound on left iliac fossa region
Sitanath Mandal
Grevious Ext.-1
about 1"x 1/2" muscle deep.
Lacerated wound on right parietal
Simple Ext.-1
region of head about 2"x1/2”.
Complain of pain over whole body.

Simple Ext.-1

Pramila Mandal Laceraed wound on occipital region
Simple Ext.-2
of head about ½” x ½” skin deep
Asit Mandal @
Lacerated wound at mid head length
Simple Ext.-3
3”x1/2” muscle deep
Aashish Mandal
Defuse swelling of left forearm and
Grievous Ext.3
painful. Fracture of shaft of ulna
Complain of pain over whole body Simple Ext.3

X. P.W.10(Upendra Pd. Yadav )- being Investigating Officer of
the case has supported the material proposition of prosecution's
case. He has deposed that during investigtion, he issued
6 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 718 of 2026
With

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 432 of 2016

2026:JHHC:31367
requisitions for medical examination report, and visited the
place of occurrence situated at village Gopinathpur Nichetola
and recorded the re-statement of informant and other witnesses.
This witness has proved endorsement over Written Report, and
formal FIR. In his cross examination he has stated that the
injury report was not given to him on the same day rather on
28.06.2018 he got the injury report of the injured persons. He
did not receive the X-ray Report along with injury report. He
has further deposed that Pramila Mandal told her that the
accused Sanjay Mandal assaulted her husband with a lathi due
to which his left hand got fractured.
8. The prosecution has also adduced documentary evidence as
under:
I. Ext.1- Injury report of Sitanath Mandal
II. Ext. 2- Injury report of Pramila Mandal
III. Ext.3- Injury report of ashish Mandal
IV. Ext. 4 – Formal FIR
V. Ext.5- Endorsement over Written Application
9. The defence has also proven certain documents as under:
I. Ext.-D1- certified copy of F.I.R. of G.R. No. 496/18
II. Ext.-D2- Certified copy of charge sheet of G.R. No. 496
of 2018
10. After culmination of the trial, the learned Trial Court has
convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the judgment of
conviction on the following grounds:
I. No witness has stated regarding the stab wound but the stab
wound has been shown in the injury report.
II. The witnesses have stated about fracture of left hand but no
7 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 718 of 2026
With

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 432 of 2016

2026:JHHC:31367
such fracture has been found. Thus, there is discrepancy in
the ocular evidence and the injury report.
III. So far as injury report is concerned, as per the Investigating
Officer, neither the injury report has been prepared on the
same day nor the X-ray plate has been prepared.
IV. As per the witnesses, Sadar Hospital had only referred the
matter and the treatment was done at Bhagalpur, but no such
document has been produced in the Court.
V. The injury report prepared by the alleged doctor has not
been examined rather from the ocular evidence and the
medical report, it appears that the injury report is
manipulated one, especially in view of the fact that there is a
case and counter case.
Based on above grounds, it has been submitted by the learned
counsel for the appellants that the material evidence available on
record suggest that no offence is made out under Section 326 of the
IPC against the appellant Sanjay Mandal [in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 718
of 2026] and at best it can be a case under Section 323 of the IPC. On
that basis, it has been prayed that conviction of the appellant Sanjay
Mandal under section 326 of the IPC may be converted into Section
323 of the IPC. and since, he has already remained in custody for
more than 8 months, the sentencing part may be reduced to the period
already undergone by him.
For the mitigating circumstances, it has been submitted that it is
a family dispute between the parties and both parties have sustained
injuries. There is no criminality in the incident rather it is a family
dispute. Neither any deadly weapon has been used in the assault nor
any grievous injury much less life threatening has been caused.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as
8 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 718 of 2026
With

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 432 of 2016

2026:JHHC:31367
learned counsel for the informant- victim have supported the
judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court and
submitted that there are enough materials on record to convict the
appellants of the charges levelled against them. It has been submitted
that the medical evidence suggests that there was a stab injury and
some of the injuries are grievous in nature. The incident has been
proved and the injuries have also been proved, as such, there is no
infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence.
13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of
the record, this Court finds that:
I. The injury report itself is doubtful as per the Investigating
Officer.
II. As per the Investigating Officer, injury report has been prepared
subsequently and statement of the witnesses regarding injuries
does not get corroboration from the medical report.
III. The medical report itself is doubtful because the treatment has
been done in Bhagalpur but no document regarding the same
has been brought on record.
IV. There is a conflict between the parties and both parties have
suffered injuries and there is exaggeration regarding nature of
injury.
14 . In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that conviction
of the appellant Sanjay Mandal [ in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 718 of 2026]
under Section 326 of the IPC is bad in law rather the materials
available proves the offence under Section 323 of the IPC.
15 . Accordingly, conviction of the appellant Sanjay Mandal [in Cr.
Appeal (SJ) No. 718 of 2026] under Section 326 of the IPC is
converted into Section 323 of the IPC. So far as sentencing part is
9 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 718 of 2026
With

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 432 of 2016

2026:JHHC:31367
concerned, since there is no aggravating circumstances brought on
record rather both the parties are in litigating terms and there is a case
and counter case and in that view of the matter, the sentence awarded
to the appellant Sanjay Mandal is reduced the period already
undergone by him.
16 . So far as other appellants [in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.432 of 2026]
are concerned, sentence awarded to them is also reduced to the period
already undergone by them.
17. Accordingly, appellant- Sanjay Mandal is directed to be
released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. So far as other
appellants are concerned in connected Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 432 of
2026, since their provisional bail has already been confirmed, they are
discharged from the liability of the bail bond.
18. In the result, both appeals are disposed of with the modification
in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.04.2026
passed in Sessions Trial No. 112 of 2019 arising out of Pakur Muffasil
P.S. Case No. 98 of 2018, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 495 of
2018, by the learned Sessions Judge, Pakur. Consequently, I.A. No.
14637 of 2026 (in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 718 of 2026) seeking
suspension of sentence also stands disposed of.
19. Let the trial court record be sent to the concerned court,
forthwith.


(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
A. Mohanty
Jharkhand High Court
Dated 27th October 2026

Uploaded

___/____/2026
10 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 718 of 2026
With

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 432 of 2016