2026:JHHC:25880

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 1288 of 2005

[Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated

26.09.2005, passed by learned 2

nd

Additional Sessions Judge,

Garhwa, in Sessions Trial No. 161 of 1988].

1. Manik Singh, son of Gora Prasad Singh, Resident of

Village – Pachpokhari, Police Station - Haider Nagar,

District - Palamau.

2. Surendra Singh, son of Late Harihar Singh, resident of

Village – Ranpura, Police Station – Ranka, District –

Garhwa.

3. Nagendra Singh, son of Brij Nandan Singh, resident of

Village – Karui, Police Station – Majhiaon, District –

Garhwa.

… … Appellants

Versus

The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent

…..

For the Appellants : Mr. Ashish Kumar Sinha, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, A.P.P.

…..

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

JUDGMENT

C.A.V. on 20.07.2026 Pronounced on 27.08.2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant Criminal Appeal is directed against the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

26.09.2005 passed by learned 2

nd Additional Sessions

Judge, Garhwa in Sessions Trial No. 161 of 1988,

whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been

held guilty for the offence under Section 307 of the

I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced

to undergo R.I. for five years along for the offence

under Section 307 of I.P.C. and R.I. for three years for

2026:JHHC:25880

2

the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Both

the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on

15.11.85 the informant namely , Gamhar Singh

submitted the written report before the Officer-in-

charge, Ranka P.S., alleging therein that he along

with Mahabir Singh and Mundar Singh were going to

Ranka Block for filing nom ination of election for

Panchayat mukhiya. When the informant reached

near Chhatia then he was informed by one Gulab

Chand Mahto that the co -accused persons, 13 in

numbers, were planning to harvest the paddy crops of

the informant. On such information, the informant

returned to home and went to the field, where he saw

that accused Surendra Singh and his two brother-in-

laws namely, Baldeo Singh and Tapeshwar Singh ,

Jagarnath Sao, Khelawan Prahiya, Basudeo Prahiya,

Charitra Prahiya, Bhukhan Prahiya, Nathu Singh ,

Sona Singh, Prem Chand Prasad are present in the

field. The informant also saw that Surendra Singh

and his two brothers-in-law were armed with gun and

rests were armed with garasa, bhala and lathi. About

30 labourers were found harvesting the green paddy

in field. The informant asked Surendra Singh as to

why he was doing such type of mischief then

2026:JHHC:25880

3

Surendra Singh told him that the crops was grown by

him, as such he was cutting the same with the help of

labourers, which led exchange of hot words. Surendra

Singh and his two brothers-in-law opened fire, due to

which, the informant and other persons received

injuries. The other accused persons assaulted

Rameshwar Singh and others by lathi and took away

the paddy crops.

4. On the basis of above information, FIR being Ranka

P.S. Case No. 75 of 1985 was registered against the

13 accused persons including the appellants for the

offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 379

of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act against all

the 13 accused persons.

5. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was

submitted against all the 13 accused persons. After

taking cognizance of the offence, the learned

Magistrate committed the case to the Court of

Sessions. The charges were framed for the offence

under Sections 148, 379,323, 307/149 of I.P.C. and

Section 27 of the Arms Act and the same was read

over and explained to the accused persons, to which

they denied from the charges and claimed to be tried.

Later on, co-accused Tapeshwar Singh and Sona

Singh have died and their names have been expunged

from the trial.

2026:JHHC:25880

4

6. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined

altogether 16 witnesses and also adduced following

documentary evidence:-

Exhibit-1 : Signature of Alauddin Warsi on

production list.

Exhibit-1/1 : Signature of Alauddin Warsi on

seizure list.

Exhibit-2 : Signature of Aziz Mian on

production list.

Exhibit-2/1 : Signature of Aziz Mian on

seizure list.

Exhibit-3 : Signature of informant Gamhar

Singh on written report.

Exhibit-4 to

4/8

: Injury Reports of Injured.

Exhibit-5 : Written Report.

Exhibit-6 : Report of Sargent Major dated

21.11.1985.

7. However, defence has examined one formal witness

and also adduced following documentary evidences:

Exhibit-A : Revenue records of Village –

Harigawan.

Exhibit-A/1 : Fardbeyan of G.R. Case No.

735/1985.

Exhibit-A/2 : C.C. of Judgment of S.T. No.

163/1988.

Exhibit-B : Government rent receipts.

Exhibit-C : Settlement paper of Jamabandi.

8. The learned trial court, after considering the oral as

well as documentary evidence available on record,

2026:JHHC:25880

5

acquitted the appellants for the offence under

Sections 148 & 379 of the I.P.C., rather found guilty

for the offence under Sections 307 of the I.P.C. and

Section 27 of the Arms act and sentenced them, as

stated above and also acquitted other eight co -

accused persons.

Arguments advanced on behalf of Appellants.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant s assailing the

impugned judgment has submitted that the appellants

have been falsely implicated in this case due to land

dispute. There was case and counter case between the

parties, i.e. Ranka P.S. Case No. 76 of 1985 and

Ranka P.S. Case No. 75 of 1985 and in the counter

case the informant party have already been convicted.

10. It is further submitted that to prove an offence under

Section 307 IPC, the court has to see if the act was

done with the intention or knowledge so as to cause

death and since the facts do not prove such intention

or knowledge on part of the accused-appellants, there

cannot be an offence for attempt to murder under

Section 307 IPC. It also observed that the intention

has to be gathered from the entire circumstances of

the case such as nature of the weapon used, the

manner in which it was used, severity of the blow or

hurt, the part of the body where the injury was

2026:JHHC:25880

6

inflicted and so on and not merely from the end

result.

11. It is further submitted that even if the entire evidence

of injured persons in the light of their injury reports

(Exhibit-4 to 4/8) is taken to be true on its face value,

no offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. is constituted.

From perusal of injury reports (Exhibit-4 to 4/8), it

appears that the injuries caused by the injured

persons are simple in nature.

12. It is further submitted that although there was

allegation against the appellants for causing firearm

injury upon the injured namely, Mundar Singh,

Sundar Singh and Gamhar Singh (informant), but as

per the Doctor, no entry or exit wound were found on

the body of the injured and as per prosecution case, it

is close range fire arm injury caused to the injured,

but charring, blackening and tattooing were not

present upon the body of the injured, which has not

been proved by any Medical Officer.

13. It is further submitted that the conviction for the

offence under section 27 Arms Act is totally bad in

law in absence of any proved fact with respect to

either contravention of section 5 or section 7 of the

Arms Act in order to constitute the offence punishable

either u/s 27(1) or 27(2) or 27(3).

2026:JHHC:25880

7

14. It is further submitted that Investigating Officer of

this case has not been examined and, therefore, the

place of occurrence, the manner and mode of

occurrence, non-production of any arms or

ammunition remained unproved and the learned trial

Court did not apply the appropriate judicious mind

while upholding the conviction under section 27 of the

Arms Act which is bad in law.

Argument advanced on behalf of State .

15. On the other hand, learned APP appearing for the

State has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of

the appellants and defended the impugned judgment

and order on merits . Further, learned APP has

submitted that the conviction of the appellants under

section 27 of the Arms Act along with section 307 of

IPC is fully sustainable as injured have sustained

gun-shot injuries which have also been proved by the

medical evidence.

Analysis, Discussions and Reasons.

16. I have gone through the record the case along with

impugned judgment in the light of contentions raised

on behalf of both side.

17. Before imparting my judgment, it would be apposite to

take brief resume of prosecution evidence.

2026:JHHC:25880

8

18. It appears that altogether 16 witnesses have been

examined in this case, out of which P.W.-7 Pacchu

Singh is the tender witness, P.W.-10 Alauddin Brami

and P.W.-11 Asiz Mian, both are seizure list witness,

P.W.-15 Ramesh Pal is a formal witness, who has

proved the injury reports of Dr. U.S. Madhu, which

are marked as Exhibit -4 to 4/8 and P.W.-16

Rajendra Prasad is also formal witness, who has

proved the formal F.I.R. and the fardbeyan, which are

marked as Exhibit-5 and 6.

19. The main allegation attributed against the appellants

is of giving firearm injuries upon the injured, so the

evidence of injured Mundar Singh (P.W. -1), Sundar

Singh (P.W.-2) and Gamhar Singh (P.W. -12)

(informant) are important to decide the case.

20. P.W.-1 Mundar Singh. He has deposed that on the

date and time of occurrence, he was working in his

field. On alarm of Gamhar Singh, he reached at his

field, where he saw that the accused Surendra Singh

and his two brothers along with Baldeo Singh,

Tapeshwar Singh, Charitra Parahiya and 40-50 other

persons were present at the place of occurrence. The

accused Surendra Singh and his two brothers were

armed with gun and the rest accused persons were

armed with lathi and garasa. The ladies were armed

with hasua. Informant Gamhar Singh asked them not

2026:JHHC:25880

9

to cut his paddy crops. On this, accused Surendra

Singh and his two brothers opened fire in which

Gamhar Singh, Sundar Singh and this witness have

received firearm injuries on their person. This witness

has further stated that informant Gamhar Singh had

grown the paddy crops in his field but the accused

persons cut away the paddy crops and ke pt it in the

house of Sona Singh of Village Tuti Munda.

In his cross-examination, this witness has stated

that as soon as he arrived, he was shot. Surendra

Singh had fired a single shot at him and the pellets

struck his chest and the palm of his left hand. This

witness has further stated that he was 25 yards away

from scene of the incident, when he was shot.

Surendra Singh had shot at him with a small gun.

21. P.W.-2 Sundar Singh. He has also stated the same

fact in his evience as that of P.W.-1. He has stated

that Nagendra Singh shot him on the chest with gun.

22. P.W.-12 Gamhar Singh is the informant of this case.

He has stated in his evidence that on the date and

time of occurrence, when he reached at his field, he

saw that some labourers under the direction of

accused Surendra, Manik and Nagendra Singh were

cutting his paddy crops. The other accused persons

were also present there. The accused Surendra Singh,

2026:JHHC:25880

10

Manik and Surendra Parahiya were armed with gun

and pistol. When he asked the accused persons not to

cut his paddy crops, then the accused Surendra,

Manik Singh opened fire, in which, this witness,

Mundar and Sundar Singh received injury of firearms

and the rest accused persons assaulted Mahabir

Singh and others by lathi. The accused persons cut

away his 50 bundles of paddy crops. This witness has

further stated that later on he reported the matter to

the police and got his treatment at Government

Hospital, Garhwa. He has proved his signature on the

FIR, which was marked as Exhibit -3 on behalf of

prosecution.

23. Rest witnesses i.e. P.W.-3 Bhami Singh, P.W. -4

Ramchandra Singh, P.W. -5 Sohrai Bhuian, P.W.-6

Rambriksha Singh, P.W.-8 Bhandari Singh, P.W.-9

Kamleshwar Singh, P.W.-13 Ramdhari Singh and

P.W.-14 Bacchu Singh have claimed themselves to be

eye-witnesses of the case and deposed in the same

line as of the injured.

24. In order to substantiate the offence under Section 307

of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act, the

injury reports of the injured persons are necessary to

be re-produced hereinbelow:-

Injury Report of Injured – Mundar Singh (Exhibit-

4/3):-

2026:JHHC:25880

11

(i) A lacerated wound 1 cm in diameter & skin deep

on the outer side of left hand.

(ii) A lacerated wound 1 cm in diameter & skin deep

on lower part of the left side of chest.

All the injuries of injured - Mundar Singh are

opined to be simple in nature caused by firearm.

Although injury report of injured Mundar Singh

(Exhibit-4/3) is opined to be caused by firearm, but

no charring, blackening, no exit or entry point or any

other sign of firearm injury has been specifically

mentioned in the injury report.

Under such circumstances, non -examination of

Doctor, who conducted medical examination , such

type of injures, could not be considered caused by any

firearm.

Injury Report of Injured – Gamhar Singh (Exhibit-

4/4):-

(i) Five lacerated wounds (rounded)1 cm diameter &

skin deep on the front of chest.

(ii) One lacerated wound 1 cm diameter & skin deep

on the :-

(a) Dettoid region;

(b) Right index finger.

(iii) Three lacerated wound 1 cm diameter and skin

2026:JHHC:25880

12

deep on the front of left thigh.

All injuries of Gamhar Singh are also opined

to be simple in nature caused by firearm.

Injury Report of Injured – Sundar Singh (Exhibit-

4/5):-

(i) A lacerated wound 1 cm diameter & skin deep on

the (a) left side of chest (b) lower and middle of

the chest (c) on the front of left thigh.

All injuries of Sundar Singh are also opined

to be simple in nature caused by firearm.

25. Before imparting my judgment, it is pertinent to

mention the relevant provisions of law:-

307. Attempt to murder.—

Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge,

and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused

death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished

with imprisonment of either description for a term which

may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine;

and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the

offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or

to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.

Attempts by life convicts.— When any person offending

under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for

life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.

26. It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case

of Hari Singh Vs. Sukhbir Singh & Others , as

reported in (1988) 4 SCC 551, at para-7 that:-

2026:JHHC:25880

13

"7. …………..Under Section 307 I.P.C. what the

court has to see is, whether the act irrespective

of is 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

consequence 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."

27. It has also been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the

case of Jage Ram & Others Vs. State of Haryana,

as reported in (2015) 11 SCC 366, at para-12 that:-

"12. For the purpose of conviction under Section

307 IPC, 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 accused had attempted to

commit the murder of the prosecution witness.

Whether the accused person intended to commit

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

2026:JHHC:25880

14

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."

28. From recapitulating the entire evidences available on

record, it appears that the Doctor, who has treated

the injured was not examined, therefore, there is no

opinion of the conducting Doctor that above injuries

were likely to cause death or dangerous to life. It

appears that although the charge were framed for the

offence under Sections 148, 379, 323, 307/149 of the

I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act, but the learned

trial court considering the gravity of offence wrongly

assumed that the said gunshot injuries were given

with intention to kill the injured persons or to

knowledge that such injury in all probability may

cause death of the injured persons and therefore the

trial court has wrongly convicted the appellants under

Sections 307 of the I.P.C.

29. For constituting the offence under Section 307 of the

I.P.C., the Court has to see, whether the act

irrespective of its result, was done with the intention

or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in

the Section 300 of the I.P.C.

2026:JHHC:25880

15

30. In the instance case, the injuries sustained by injured

persons are found on the vital part of the body, but

simple in nature and the injuries caused to the

injured persons appear to be happened in sudden

manner without any intention to kill the injured

persons or the knowledge as required to constitute

offence of murder under Section 300 of the I.P.C. It is

also trite that the intention of the accused can be

ascertained from the actual injury, if any, as well as

from surrounding circumstances. Among other

things, the nature of the weapon used and the

severity of the blows inflected can be considered to

infer intention.

31. There were thirteen accused persons executed the

commission of offence allegedly armed with various

lethal weapons, but only simple injuries were inflicted

upon the injured persons. If the accused persons had

intention to commit murder of the injured persons,

there was no intervening circumstance to prevent

them from causing murder even assaulting on vital

part of body like head etc., but the same has not been

done by the appellants.

32. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

case and submissions of learned counsel for the

parties, I am of the considered view that conviction

and sentence of the appellants for the offence

2026:JHHC:25880

16

under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is not sustainable

and justified under law, which is hereby set aside.

However, from the facts of the case, the offence

under Section 324 of the I.P.C. is made out.

33. The relevant provision of Section 324 of the I.P.C.

reads as under:-

324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous

weapons or means.—

Whoever, except in the case provided for

by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by

means of any instrument for shooting,

stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which,

used as weapon of offence, is likely to cause

death, or by means of fire or any heated

substance, or by means of any poison or any

corrosive substance, or by means of any

explosive substance or by means of any

substance which it is deleterious to the

human body to inhale, to swallow, or to

receive into the blood, or by means of any

animal, shall be punished with imprisonment

of either description for a term which may

extend to three years, or with fine, or with

both.

34. This Court in the background of the evidence

available in this case, finds the offences under Section

324 of the I.P.C. is constituted against the appellants,

as there is direct allegation against the appellants to

2026:JHHC:25880

17

cause simple injuries upon the injured persons .

Therefore, the appellants are held guilty for the

offence under Section 324 of I.P.C. only

35. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of “Surinder Singh v. State (Union Territory

of Chandigarh)” reported in (2021) 20 SCC 24,

which read as under:

“29. Adverting to the conviction of the appellant

under Section 27 of the Arms Act, it appears to

us that the trial court has erred in arriving at

his culpability. There is no gainsay that in order

to prove a charge under Section 27 of the Arms

Act, the prosecution must necessarily

demonstrate contravention of either Section 5 or

7 of the Act. In the instant case, although not

explicitly stated, it appears that the trial court

has held it to be a case of breach of Section 5 of

the Arms Act, which stipulates that no person

shall use, possess, manufacture, etc. any

firearms, unless such person holds a licence in

this behalf, and prescribes a minimum

punishment of 3 years of imprisonment.

30. The relevant extracts of unamended

Sections 5 and 27 of the Arms Act which were

in force at the relevant time, read as follows:

"5. Licence for manufacture, sale, etc.,

of arms and ammunition - (1) No person

shall- (a) use, manufacture, sell, transfer,

convert, repair, test or prove, or (b) expose

or offer for sale or transfer or have in his

possession for sale, transfer, conversion,

repair, test or proof, any firearm or any

other arms of such class or description as

2026:JHHC:25880

18

may be prescribed or any ammunition,

unless he holds in this behalf a licence

issued in accordance with the provisions of

this Act and the rules made thereunder.

27. Punishment for using arms, etc. -(1)

Whoever uses any arms or ammunition in

contravention of Section 5 shall be punishable

with imprisonment for a term which shall not be

less than three years but which may extend to

seven years and shall also be liable to fine. (2)

Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited

ammunition in contravention of Section 7 shall

be punishable with imprisonment for a term

which shall not be less than seven years but

which may extend to imprisonment for life and

shall also be liable to fine. (3) Whoever uses any

prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition or

does any act in contravention of Section 7 and

such use or act results in the death of any other

person, shall be punishable with death."

36. It further appears that the conviction of the appellants

under section 27 of the Arms Act is bad in law as the

learned trial court did not discuss under which sub-

section of section 27 of Arms Act, appellants were

found guilty. Further it is also found that I.O. in this

case has not been examined and hence the manner,

mode and place of occurrence could not be proved

formally and also it is fatal for the prosecution as it

could not be determined as to under which clause of

section 27 of Arms Act, the appellant has been held

guilty so far as it relates to the arm used by the

appellant in causing injury to the victim was in

2026:JHHC:25880

19

contravention of section 5 or in contravention of

section 7 of the Arms Act to fasten guilt of appellant

either under section 27(1) or 27(2) or 27(3) of the

Arms Act. Moreover, the Doctor, who has examined

the injured persons has not been examined to explain

as to how the injuries were opined to be caused by

use of firearm.

37. Therefore, this Court set-aside the conviction and

sentence of the appellant dated 26.09.2005 passed by

the learned 2

nd Additional Sessions Judge, Garhwa in

Sessions Trial No. 161 of 1988 for the offence under

section 27 of the Arms Act and the appellant s are

acquitted from the charge levelled against him for the

offence punishable under section 27 of the Arms Act.

38. So far sentence of the appellants for the offence under

Section 324 of the I.P.C. is concerned, it appears that

the occurrence is of the year 1985 and more than four

decades have elapsed and the appellants have also

remained in custody for two months. Therefore,

further custodial sentence of the appellants is not

required at this stage as no useful purpose would be

served to send the appellants again in jail. Therefore,

imprisonment already undergone by the appellants

would meet the ends of justice in this case, instead of

undergoing further imprisonment awarded by the

learned trial court.

2026:JHHC:25880

20

39. In view of aforesaid discussion and reasons, the

sentence awarded to the appellants by the learned

trial court is hereby modified and reduced to

imprisonment already undergone for the offence

under Section 324 of I.P.C.

40. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits with

modification in conviction and sentence , as stated

above.

41. The appellants are on bail. As such, they are

discharged from the liability of bail bonds and

sureties shall also discharged.

42. Pending I.A., if any, stand disposed of.

43. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court

record be sent back to the court concerned for

information and needful.

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi

Dated, the 27

th August, 2026.

Sunil /N.A.F.R.

Uploaded on 28/08/2026