BANTOSH KUMAR PAN vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

2026:JHHC:26178
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.19 of 2019
---------
[Against the Judgment of conviction dated 19.09.2018 and
Order of sentence dated 25.09.2018, passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge – II, West Singhbhum at
Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No.138 of 2017, arising out of
Sonua P.S. Case No.13 of 2017 (G.R. No.73 of 2017)]
---------

Bantosh Kumar Pan aged about 43 years, son of Late
Prafulla Pan, resident of Village – Bhalurugi, P.O & P.S. -
Sonua, District – West Singhbhum, Chaibasa (Jharkhand).
….. Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
---------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---------
For the Appellant : Mrs. Vineeta Sharma, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, A.P.P
---------
st
Order No.09/ Dated: 31 August, 2026
1. Heard Mrs. Vineeta Sharma, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, learned counsel for
the State.
2. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment
of conviction dated 19.09.2018 and order of sentence dated
25.09.2018, passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge – II, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial
No.138 of 2017, arising out of Sonua P.S. Case No.13 of
2017, corresponding to G.R No.73 of 2017, whereby the
appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section
307 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and has been
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven
years with fine of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty thousand) and in
- 1 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.19 of 2019

2026:JHHC:26178
default thereof, he has been sentenced to further undergo
Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months.
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is based on the
fardbeyan of the informant -cum- sole victim, Khirod Tanti
(P.W.-2), stating therein that on 15-03-2017 at about 5.30
p.m while he was leaving his house and going towards the
village in the meantime, at some distance of his house, his
uncle Bantosh Pan came from his back side and inflicted
blow with 'Dab' on his head with intent to kill him as a
result he sustained injury on his head and profuse bleeding
started from there. He fell down on the ground. Thereafter,
he was immediately brought to Sonua Hospital by the
villagers but due to critical condition, he was referred to
Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa. Further, he was referred to
M.G.M. Hospital, Jamshedpur for better treatment. The
reason/ motive behind the occurrence was his father was
Chawkidar at Sonua Police Station, who died during his
service period, then his uncle Bantosh Pan wanted to get
service on place of his father, but his mother Sarsawati
Tanti joined service on place of his father. Thereafter, his
uncle threatened to kill them therefore, due to previous
enmity he inflicted blow on his head as a result he
sustained severe injury.
On the basis of above fardbeyan , Sonua P.S Case
No.13 of 2017 was registered against the accused, under
Sections 341/ 323/ 324/ 307 IPC. The police, after
completing the investigation, has submitted the charge-
- 2 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.19 of 2019

2026:JHHC:26178
sheet under Sections 341/ 323/ 324/ 307 IPC. The charge
has been framed against the accused under Sections 341/
323/ 307 IPC on 16.12.2017 and the case has been
committed to the court of Sessions to which the appellant
has pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried and
accordingly, the trial has commenced.
4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has
examined altogether 08 witnesses and their depositions, in
short, are as follows :-
5. P.W.-1, Gopal Bhattacharya, is a hearsay witness.
He has deposed for the first time in the court. He has not
been examined by the police.
6. P.W.-2, Khirod Tanti, is the informant -cum- victim
himself. He has clearly stated in his cross-examination that
he is direct beneficiary, if the accused goes to the jail. He
disputes the seizure of the alleged weapon in Para – 10 of
the cross-examination. He has also stated that he is
performing duty in place of his mother and there is a
dispute regarding the job of Chowkidari with the present
accused-appellant.
7. P.W.-3, Sunil Kumar Das, is a labourer and he has
been declared hostile.
8. P.W.-4, Ravi Kumar Das, is also a hearsay witness.
He has stated that he has taken the victim to the police
station where he has been made to sign in a plain paper.
9. P.W.-5, Dr. Jayshree Kiran Pardhia, is the doctor
who has examined the victim. He has accepted that there is
- 3 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.19 of 2019

2026:JHHC:26178
interpolation in the injury report and it does not bear the
seal of the hospital. The reason/ fact for disclosing the time
of injury has also not been disclosed.
10. P.W.-6, Seema Tanti, is the wife of the victim who
claimed herself to be an eye witness of the incident. She
has admitted that there is a property dispute between the
parties and they are the direct beneficiary. She has also
stated that her husband i.e. the victim has been taken to
the police station by P.W.-4.
11. P.W.-7, Kali Charan Das, is a labourer and he has
been declared hostile.
12. P.W.-8, Karunakar Tiwary, is the Investigating
Officer of the case. In his cross-examination, he has stated
that :-
(i) the victim himself has come to the police station
and this statement gets falsified by the statement
given by P.Ws.-4 & 6, as they have stated that one
Ravi has taken the victim to the police station.
(ii) the I.O has also stated that he has taken the
victim to the hospital, but he has not taken his
fardbeyan . The fardbeyan of the victim has been
taken by another police personnel in the M.G.M
Hospital, Jamshedpur. He has also stated that the
victim is doing job in place of his mother.
13. On consideration of the above materials on record,
the trial Court has found the accused-appellant guilty for
the offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him, as
- 4 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.19 of 2019

2026:JHHC:26178
stated above.
14. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of
conviction, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
from perusal of the record, it appears that :-
(A) there is a property dispute between the
parties and further regarding the job of
chowkidari also and these are may be the reasons
for false implication of the appellant in the present
case.
(B) the injury report itself is doubtful. The age
of the injury has been disclosed by the doctor is
without any basis.
(C) there is interpolation in the injury report
and further there is no seal of the hospital on it.
The police has taken the victim to the primary
health center, but the injured has been treated at
the MGM Hospital, Jamshedpur and nothing has
been brought on record so far as treatment of the
injured in the MGM Hospital, Jamshedpur, is
concerned.
16. Thus, this Court finds that the evidence produced by
the prosecution is neither reliable nor sufficient for
conviction of the appellant under Section 307 IPC.
Accordingly, the Judgment of conviction dated 19.09.2018
and order of sentence dated 25.09.2018, passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge – II, West Singhbhum at
- 5 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.19 of 2019

2026:JHHC:26178
Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No.138 of 2017, arising out of
Sonua P.S. Case No.13 of 2017, corresponding to G.R No.73
of 2017 is, hereby, quashed and set aside.
17. In the result, the appeal stands allowed and
accordingly disposed of.
18. The appellant is on bail, hence, he is discharged from
the liability of bail bond.
19. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court
concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this Judgment.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
st
Dated, the 31 August, 2026
Ravi-Chandan /-
NAFR
Uploaded on 01.09.2026
- 6 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.19 of 2019