RASU SOREN RASHU SUREN vs STATE OF JHARKHAND
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
2026:JHHC:26279
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 588 of 2006
--------
Rasu Soren @ Rashu Suren, Son of Late Gumdi Soren, R/o-Vill.-Silling,
P.O.-Tangrain, P.S.-Patka, Dist.-East Singhbhum
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand …… Respondent
--------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
--------
For the Appellant :Mr. Apurv, Advocate
Mr. A.K. Mahato, Advocate
For the State :Mr. Prabir Kr. Chatterjee, Spl.P.P.
--------
J UDGMENT
st
Dated: 01 September, 2026
By Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Spl.P.P.
for the State.
2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of
th rd
conviction dated 17 March, 2006 and order of sentence dated 03
st
April, 2006 passed in S.T. No. 34 of 2004 by the learned 1 Addl.
Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, whereby and whereunder, the
appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 307,
341 and 324 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five
years for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and
further R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 324 of the
IPC. No separate sentence has been passed for the offence under
Section 341 of the IPC. All the sentences were directed to run,
concurrently.
2026:JHHC:26279
Factual Matrix
3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 03.02.2002,
at about 7:00 PM, when the informant-Patru Suren was returning
from working on his land and reached near his old house, accused
Rashu Soren armed with sword who was waiting for the informant,
attacked the informant with intention to kill him causing injuries
on his both hands, back, head, waist, shoulder and wrist joint.
Hearing alarm, informant’s wife came to rescue who was also
assaulted by the accused by giving sword blow on his face
sustaining cut injury and thereafter the accused fled away. The co-
villagers for the informant hearing hue and cry came to save them
and due to lack of transport system, injured could not go to police
station on the same day of occurrence and later on, the informant
lodged the case.
4. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, Potka P.S. Case No. 47
of 2002 was registered for the offence under Sections 341, 324 and
307 of the IPC. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet
was submitted against the accused person under Sections 341, 324
and 307 of the IPC and after taking cognizance, the case was
committed to the court of Sessions, where S.T. No.34 of 2004 was
st
registered and the case was transferred to the Court of 1
Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur for trial and disposal.
5. The case of the defence is total denial from the occurrence and
claimed to have falsely been implicated in this case due to
previous land dispute.
2
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 588 of 2006
2026:JHHC:26279
6. In course of trial, altogether 6 (six) witnesses were examined by
the prosecution apart from documentary evidence.
7. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been
adduced by the defence.
Submissions on behalf of the appellant:-
8. Learned counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment
of conviction and order of sentence has argued that the learned trial
Court has committed serious error of law in convicting the
appellant for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC wherein
there was lack of intention of the appellant to kill the injured
witnesses who have sustained simple injuries on their body as
opined by the Doctor Paul Hansdah (P.W.-6), moreover, there is no
any evidence to prove the circumstance which prevented the
appellant to commit the murder of the injured witnesses rather
there was a general and omnibus allegation of scuffle between the
informant and the accused person due to prevailing previous land
dispute causing simply injury on the body of the injured witnesses.
In the alternative, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant has submitted that the appellant has already remained in
custody for almost one year and the case is of the year 2002 and
since then, the appellant is suffering from the agony of the trial.
Therefore, a lenient view may be taken and appropriate order may
be passed.
3
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 588 of 2006
2026:JHHC:26279
Submissions on behalf of the State:-
9. Learned Spl.P.P. has opposed the aforesaid contention raised on
behalf of the appellant defending the impugned judgment on merits
and has submitted that all the prosecution witnesses have supported
the case of the prosecution but has fairly admitted that the
appellant has remained in custody for about one year, hence,
appropriate order may be passed.
Analysis, reasons and decision
10. I have gone through the record of the case along with the
impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence in the
light of the contentions raised on behalf of parties.
11. The sole point for determination in this appeal is “as to whether the
impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant
suffers from any error of law, which requires any interference in
this appeal?”
12. Before imparting my verdict on the above point, It is pertinent to
mention the case of Jage Ram vs. State of Haryana, (2015) 11
SCC 366 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down some
basic ingredients that has to be established for conviction under
Section 307 of the IPC. Relevant para 12 of the above judgment is
extracted as under:-
“12. For the purpose of conviction under Section 307
IPC, the 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 the accused had
attempted to commit the murder of the prosecution
witness. Whether the accused person intended to commit
4
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 588 of 2006
2026:JHHC:26279
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.”
13. Similarly, the relevant para 7 of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Hari Singh Vs. Sukhbir Singh & Ors. (1988)
4 SCC 551 is extracted as under:-
“7. On the first question as to acquittal of the
accused under Section 307/149 IPC, some
significant aspects may be borne in mind. Under
Section 307 IPC what the court has to see is,
whether the act irrespective of its 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
consequences 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.”
14. I have also meticulously examined the ocular evidence of the
witnesses as available on record.
5
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 588 of 2006
2026:JHHC:26279
15. From perusal of oral testimony of the Doctor who has been
examined in this case as P.W.-6, it appears that all the injuries
sustained by the P.W.-1 (wife of the informant) and P.W.-4
(Informant) are simple in nature although the injuries were on the
vital part of the body but there was no circumstance which
intervened the appellant in causing death of the injured persons.
Therefore, required intention and knowledge to constitute the
offence under Section 307 of the IPC is absolutely lacking in this
case. In result, the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the
offence under Section 307 of the IPC is set aside.
16. So far as conviction for the offence under Section 324 of the IPC is
concerned, there are sufficient evidence of the ocular witnesses
including the injured witnesses which has been corroborated by the
Doctor (P.W.-6). Therefore, the conviction of the appellant for the
offence under Section 324 and 341 of the IPC is affirmed. It is also
submitted that the appellant has already remained in custody for
one year and it appears that the occurrence is of the year 2002 and
since then, the appellant has been suffering from the agony of the
trial who has sufficiently been punished for his guilt. Hence, it is
expedient for the ends of justice to modify the sentence of the
appellant for the offence under Section 324 of the IPC to the extent
of period already undergone by him.
17. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits with
modification in conviction and sentence as stated above
6
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 588 of 2006
2026:JHHC:26279
18. The appellant is on bail, hence, he is discharged from the liabilities
of bail bonds. The sureties are also discharged.
19. Pending I.A.(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly.
20. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record be sent
back to the court concerned immediately for information and
needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
01.09.2026
Basant/
Uploaded on 01/09/2026
7
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 588 of 2006