BECHAN SAO vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

2026:JHHC:32006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.100 of 2019
---------
[Against the Judgment of conviction dated 18.01.2019 and
Order of sentence dated 19.01.2019, passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge – III, Chatra in Sessions Trial
No.194 of 2012, arising out of Itkhori P.S. Case No.88 of

2010, (G.R. No.990 of 2010)]
---------

1. Bechan Sao, Son of Late Chulhan Sao, Aged about 65
years,
2. Deosharan Sao, Son of Late Chulhan Sao, Aged about 62
years,
3. Baleshwar Sao, Son of Late Chulhan Sao, Aged about 65
years,
4. Birendra Sao, Son of Bechan Sao, aged 40 years,
5. Shyamnandan @Shyamdeo Sao, Son of Deosharan Sao,
aged about 38 years,
6. Barun Sao @ Barun Kumar Sao, Son of Deo Sharan Sao,
aged about 27 years,
All residents of village – Mona, P.O & P.S. - Itkhori,
District - Chatra. ….. Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
---------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---------
For the Appellants : Mr. L. C. N. Shahdeo, Advocate
Mr. Vidhan Kr. Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P
For the Informant : Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, Advocate
---------
nd
Order No.13/ Dated: 02 November, 2026
1. Heard Mr. L. C. N. Shahdeo, learned counsel for the
appellants, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P.P and Mr.
Sarvendra Kumar, learned counsel for the informant.
2. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment
of conviction dated 18.01.2019 and order of sentence dated
19.01.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge – III, Chatra, in Sessions Trial No.194 of 2012,
- 1 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.100 of 2019

2026:JHHC:32006
arising out of Itkhori P.S Case No.88 of 2010 (G.R. No.990
of 2010), whereby the appellants have been convicted
under Sections 147/ 341/ 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code
(in short IPC), and have been sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under
Section 147 IPC, simple imprisonment for 15 days for the
offence under Section 341 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for
five years with fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence under
Sections 307/ 149 IPC and in default of fine, the appellants
were further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for six months. All the sentences were directed to run
concurrently.
3. The prosecution story, in brief, as stated by the
informant namely, Chanchala Devi, resident of Village –
Mouna, is that the villagers were going to start
construction work of Shivalaya Temple over lands sitated at
khata no.11 plot no.362. The villagers namely, Bechan Sao,
Deosharan Şao, Baleshwar Sao, all sons of Late Chulhan
Sao and Birendra Sao, S/o Bechan Sao, Shyamdeo Sao,
Barun Sao, both sons of Deosharan Sao, Pemni Devi W/o
Bechan Sao, Tarwa Devi W/o Deosharan Sao, Reshmi Devi
w/o Baleshwar Sao, Muniya Devi W/o Gayajit Sao and
twelve unknown persons riding on four motorcycles, all of
Village-Mouna came and stopped construction work of the
temple and thereafter Tokhan Ram, Pintu Ram, Bharos
Ram, Sudhir Ram, Sanjit Ram, Sarita Devi, Bhola Ram,
Sitaram Ram, Rajendra Ram, Parvati Devi, Guriya Devi,
- 2 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.100 of 2019

2026:JHHC:32006
Ramswaroop Ram and Birju Ram, all of Village-Mouna
asked the reason for restraining the construction work.
Thereupon, the aforesaid all persons armed with sword,
Axe and lathi-danda started assaulting and caused grievous
hurt to all persons. They took out four thousands rupees
from the pocket of Pintu Ram in course of the scuffle and
also snatched his wrist watch. They snatched the gold
earring and chain of Chanchala Devi.
On the basis of above written report, Itkhori P.S. Case
No.88 of 2010 dated 24.11.2011 has been instituted under
Sections 341/ 323/ 324/ 379/ 147/ 148/ 149/ 307/ 325/ 326
of IPC against ten named accused persons and twelve
unknown.
The police, after completing the investigation, has
submitted the charge-sheet to which cognizance has been
taken and finally the court has framed the charge against
ten accused persons, including the present appellants,
under Sections 147, 341 and 307/149 IPC. Thereafter, the
case has been committed to the court of Sessions to which
the appellants have pleaded innocence and claimed to be
tried and accordingly, the trial has commenced.
4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has
examined altogether 15 witnesses and their depositions , in
short, are as follows :-
5. P.W.-1, Chanchala Devi , is the informant of the case
and she has proved the prosecution story. In her
examination in chief, she has deposed that there was ten
- 3 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.100 of 2019

2026:JHHC:32006
named and twelve unknown persons and they had come on
four motorcycles. The incident had taken place on
24.11.2010 at 7-8 P.M., while she was present at her home.
There was construction work going on in a Shiv Mandir
which was situated nearby her house. One branch of
mango tree was bent due to a tractor carrying goods for
which the accused came there and assaulted her younger
son, daughter in law and others. Due to the assault they
have sustained serious injuries and for treatment of the
same they were sent to RIMS, Ranchi. They were remained
there for five days. Some of the injured were treated at
Itkhori Government Hospital. She has deposed that the
accused Bechan Sao has assaulted her by means of rod on
her neck and back and also on her finger due to which she
got fracture on her index finger.
In her Cross examination, she has admitted that the
temple in which the construction work was going on was
situated on a gairmazurua land. She has also admitted that
brother of the accused namely Baleshwar Yadav has filed a
case for the same set of incident on the same day which is
pending. She has also admitted that there was a civil suit
between them.
6. P.W.-2, Ajit Kumar @ Pintu Kumar , is the son of
the informant and he has also supported the prosecution
story. He has identified the accused Bechan Sao in the
Court.
In his cross examination, he has deposed that all the
- 4 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.100 of 2019

2026:JHHC:32006
accused are family members of Bechan Sao, but they live
separately. Further the Temple was situated in a
gairmazura land for which a civil suit was instituted before
Additional Collector, Chatra. He has also admitted the fact
that there was a case between the accused party and his
mother. Police has not seized any weapon from the house of
the accused.
7. P.W.-3, Sanjit Kumar , is the brother of the injured
Ajit Kumar (P.W.-2). He has stated that on hulla he came out
from his house and saw that the accused party was
assaulting his brother by means of rod, sword and lathi. He
was also assaulted by the accused persons. After the
incident the injured were brought to Itkhori Hospital for
treatment. They were referred to RIMS, Ranchi for better
treatment for which they stayed there for a week.
In his cross examination, he has admitted that the
informant is his mother. He has also admitted that the
accused Bechan Sao has also filed a case against them for
the same incident.
8. P.W.-4, Tokhan Ram , is a villager and he has
supported the prosecution story. In his examination in chief
he has stated that his son Sudhir Ram was also assaulted
by the accused persons by means of sword on his head due
to which he sustained head injury. He went to save his son
but he was also assaulted by the accused. He has deposed
that the accused Bechan Sao was restraining the
construction work of the Temple.
- 5 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.100 of 2019

2026:JHHC:32006
In his cross examination, he has admitted that there
was a land dispute between the parties. Police has not
seized any weapon from the place of occurrence. The
accused party have also instituted a case for the same set
of incident.
9. P.W.-5, Ramswaroop Chandravanshi , is a local
resident and one of the injured. He has also supported the
case. He has sustained fracture injury on his both legs as
well as injury on his head. After being treated in Itkhori
Hospital he was sent to RIMS, Ranchi for better treatment
where he stayed for 10-15 days. The scuffle was due to
construction work of the Temple.
In his cross examination, he has admitted that the
temple was partly constructed two years ago and he cannot
state the boundary of the temple and the place of
occurrence.
10. P.W.-6, Narsingh Ram , is also a local resident and
he has supported the case.
In his cross examination he has admitted that there
were so many litigation between the parties. The land in
which the Shiv Mandir was built is a gairmazurua land. He
has also sustained injury on his face. The accused Bechan
Sao has also filed a case for the same incident.
11. P.W.-7, Bharos Kumar , is is a cultivator and was
doing work in the construction work. He got injured by
Deosharan Sao on back side of his head, thereafter he got
treatment in Itkhori Hospital.
- 6 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.100 of 2019

2026:JHHC:32006
In his cross examination, he has admitted that the
said land is a common land and the Temple is old one. The
accused Bechan Sao was making claim over the land of the
temple.
12. P.W.-8, Bhola Ram , is also a local resident and he
has deposed in his examination in chief that he was present
at the place of construction work when the incident took
place. The accused came there and assaulted the victim
party and then fled away. The Police came at the hospital
where the injured were being treated.
In his cross examination, he had admitted that there
was no land dispute between the parties. He cannot say the
reason for the occurrence. The existence of Temple was
since five years back. He has also stated that the accused
Bechan Sao has also filed a case for the same occurrence.
13. P.W.-9, Sarita Devi , is bhabhi of injured Ajit Kumar
(P.W.-2) and she has supported the case. She came out of
her house when the altercation started and saw that the
accused were assaulting her brother in law. When she went
to save him she was also assaulted due to which her finger
got fractured. She has stated that she was unable to
identify the accused as they were outsiders. However, she
has identified the accused Bechan Sao.
In her cross examination, she has admitted that she
cannot say boundary of her house and also colour of the
alleged motorcycle. She has stated the boundary of place of
occurrence in paragraph No.13 of the cross examination.
- 7 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.100 of 2019

2026:JHHC:32006
14. P.W.-10, Sitaram Singh , is a witness to the incident
and he has deposed that the accused arrived at the place of
occurrence and assaulted them. He could not identified
some of the accused persons as they were outsiders. The
injured were firstly taken to Itkhori Hospital and then
RIMS, Ranchi for further treatment. He has deposed that
due to assault his front tooth had broken out. He has
further deposed that he is able to identify the accused
persons who are villlagers.
In his cross examination, he has admitted that he is a
old person, aged about 70 years and he has lost his two
tooth. The land in which the Temple is situated is a
gairmajurua land. He has stated boundary of the place of
occurrence which is mentioned at paragraph No.20 of the
cross examination. He has also admitted that the accused
Bechan Sao has also filed a case for the same set of
incident.
15. P.W.-11, Sudhir Ram , is a witness to the incident
and an injured. He has deposed that due to assault, he
sustained injuries on his head, hand and finger. He became
unconscious and for treatment he was admitted in Itkhori
Hospital. He has identified the accused Bechan Sao in the
Court.
In his cross examination, he has admitted that the
accused has also filed a case for the same set of incident.
There is a dispute of Temple between the parties for last
seven years. The altercation had taken place inside the
- 8 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.100 of 2019

2026:JHHC:32006
Temple. He has also stated that the accused Bechan Sao is
aged about 70-75 years.
16. P.W.-12, Parvati Devi , is an eye witness to the
incident and she has supported the case.
In her cross examination, she has admitted that she is
aged about 60 years. She has stated that the accused
Bechan Sao has also filed a case against the villagers for
the same occurrence, but he has not filed case against her
husband. There is dispute for the land of the Temple. The
police has not seized any articles from the place of
occurrence.
17. P.W.-13, Sidheshwar Prasad Singh , is the
Investigating Officer of the case. He has proved the formal
FIR and the endorsement. He has recorded the statement
of the victim and issued the injury letter (Ext- 3 to 3/14).
He gave an application for adding Section 307 IPC in the
FIR and after transfer of record he handed over the charge
of investigation to another I.O.
In his cross examination, he has admitted that the
place of occurrence is situated at 9 kms away from the
police station. He has not investigated the case and
prepared the injury letter in a short time. He has recorded
the statement of all the injured same day. He has not seized
anything either from the place of incident or from the
house of the accused.
18. P.W.-14, Dr. Ajay Kumar Ravi , is the is the doctor,
who has treated the victims. During treatment, he found
- 9 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.100 of 2019

2026:JHHC:32006
that the injured Sarita Devi (P.W.-9) has sustained fracture
on her right ring finger, which is serious in nature. During
treatment of injured Sitaram (P.W.-10), he found that the
injured has sustained grievous injury as his one lower tooth
was missing and blood was coming out from there. Rest of
the injuries, sustained by other victims, were reported as
simple in nature either caused by hard and blunt substance
or by falling on hard surface.
19. P.W.-15, Surendra Sharma , is also the Investigating
Officer and he has deposed that after taking charge of
investigation, he has arrested the accused persons and
thereafter, submitted the charge-sheet against the accused
persons. He has not recorded the statement of the Doctor
of RIMS, Ranchi during the investigation. He has found
that there was litigation between the parties for
gairmazuruwa land for temple. He has not recovered any
article from the place of occurrence during the
investigation. He has not recorded any statement of
witnesses during the investigation.
20 . The trial Court, on the basis of above materials
available on record, has convicted the appellants under
Sections 147, 341, and 307/149 IPC and sentenced them as
stated above.
21. Referring to the materials available on record, it has
been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants
that all the injuries are simple in nature except two
grievous injuries i.e. fracture of finger and broken tooth,
- 10 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.100 of 2019

2026:JHHC:32006
which have been caused by hard and blunt substance. On
that basis, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for
the appellants that :-
(i) at best it is an offence under Section 325
IPC and no offence under Sections 147, 341 and
307 IPC is made under which the conviction has
been made.
(ii) there is a case and counter case between
the parties. The other side has also been
convicted, but they have been given the benefit of
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
(iii) apart from the grievous injuries i.e. broken
tooth and fracture in the finger, both the parties
have suffered similar type of injuries and they are
relatives and there is a property dispute between
them also.
It has further been submitted by the learned counsel
for the appellants that since there is a mitigating
circumstances and the other sides have been given the
benefit of Probation of Offender Act, 1958, hence these
appellants should be treated leniently and the sentencing
part may be reduced to the period already undergone by
them.
As per the custody report, total period of custody
undergone by the the appellants is as follows :-
Sl.
No.
Name of the convicts/
Total period of
appellants
custody
1 Bechan Sao 08 months 07 days
- 11 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.100 of 2019

2026:JHHC:32006
2 Deosharan Sao 05 months 24 days
3 Baleshwar Sao 08 months 23 days
4 Birendra Sao 05 months 24 days
5
Shyamnanda @Shyamdeo
Sao
10 months 04 days
6 Barun Sao @ Barun Kumar
Sao
08 months 21 days
22. On the other hand, learned P.P and learned counsel
for the informant have supported the judgment of
conviction and submitted that vital part of the body has
been targeted and further, there is grievous injury and as
such the conviction of the appellants under Sections 147,
341 and 307/149 IPC is justified.
23. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on
perusal of the record it appears that :-
(i) there was a free fight between the parties
and both the parties have suffered similar type of
injuries, save and except the fracture in finger
(P.W.-9) and broken of tooth (P.W.-10), sustained by
the informant side,
(ii) there is no evidence on record which
suggests that any deadly weapons have been used
or even the injury, sustained by the informant side,
is a life threatening.
Considering the above facts, this Court finds that the
conviction of the appellants Sections 147, 341 and 307/ 149
IPC is bad in law rather, the material, available on record,
suggests that the conviction of the appellants should be
only under Section 325 IPC.
- 12 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.100 of 2019

2026:JHHC:32006
Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants awarded
by the trial court under Sections147, 341 and 307/ 149 IPC
is hereby modified and they are convicted under Section
325 IPC only.
24. So far as sentencing part is concerned, this Court
finds that :-
(i) there is a mitigating circumstances, as there
was a free fight between both the parties and both
the parties have sustained similar type of injury and
further, the informant party has been given the
benefit of Probation of Offender Act.
(ii) both the parties are relatives and there is a
property dispute between them also.
Considering the above fact, the sentencing part is
reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants.
25. The appellants are in custody and as such, they are
directed to be released from custody forthwith, if not
wanted in any other case.
26. With above modification in the conviction and
sentencing part, the present appeal stands partly allowed.
27. Pending interlocutory application being I.A No.12320
of 2026, stands disposed of.
28. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court
concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this Judgment.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
nd
Dated, the 02 November, 2026
Ravi-Chandan /- NAFR
Uploaded on 03.11.2026
- 13 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.100 of 2019