2026:JHHC:28473

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 192 of 2017

------

Md. Samiuddin Ansari @ Samsuddin Ansari, son of Late

Kadam Rasul Mian, resident of Village Pandaniya, P.O.-

Kusmaha, P.S.-Margomunda, District Deoghar

…… Appellant

Versus

The State of Jharkhand ……Respondent

----------

For the Appellant :Mr. Sudhansu Kumar Deo, Advocate

For the State :Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, A.P.P.

----------

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

--------

J U D G M E N T

C.A.V. on 16.01.2026 Pronounced on: 21.09.2026

------

1. Heard Mr. Sudhansu Kumar Deo, learned counsel

appearing for the appellant/convict and Mr. Sunil Kumar

Dubey, learned A.P.P for the State.

2. The instant appeal is being preferred against the

judgment of conviction dated 10.01.2017 and order of

sentence dated 12.01.2017 passed by the learned 2

nd

Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court (Rape

Cases), Deoghar in Sessions Trial No. 258 of 2011, whereby

and whereunder the learned trial court has convicted the

appellant under Sections 307, 379 and 323 of IPC and

sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of 7 years and

with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 307 of IPC and

under Section 379 of IPC sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1

year and Section 323 of IPC being petty offence, thus no

2026:JHHC:28473

2

separate sentence was imposed. Further, in default of

payment of fine directed to undergo S.I for further 3 months

and both the sentences shall run concurrently.

3. In the present case, F.I.R. was registered on the

basis of written application dated 26.06.2011 submitted by

the informant, namely, Sushant Dey. He stated therein that

he was running a shop selling sweets and breakfast, near

old Chihutia mode. He further stated that on the preceding

day i.e. 25.06.2011 at noon, Samsuddin Mian @ Sama, S/o

of Kadam Rasul, resident of Pandaniya P.S. Karon, District

Deoghar came to his shop and had breakfast worth Rs. 22/-

and when the informant demanded the payment of the said

amount, he told the informant that he used to have

breakfast free of cost, thereafter without making the said

payment for the breakfast, he went away from the shop by

extending threat to the informant that he would teach him a

lesson in the evening.

4. It is further alleged that, in the evening at about

07:30 P.M. while the informant was at his shop and some

customers were having breakfast, the aforesaid Samsuddin

Mian @ Sama came there and started abusing him. He then

caught hold of informant’s wrist. When the informant

objected to the abuse and tried to free himself, then

Samsuddin Mian @ Sama took out a knife from his waist

and gave a knife blow upon him. The informant tried to

evade the blow, however, he sustained knife injury above

his right knee from blood started oozing and when second

knife blow was given, it struck the informant on his head.

On the informant raising an alarm, his brother Prashant

Dey and his nephew Suman Kumar Dey came there and

they too sustained injuries.

2026:JHHC:28473

3

5. It is alleged that informant’s brother sustained an

injury on the palm of his right hand, whereas the

informant’s nephew Suman Kumar Dey sustained injuries

to the finger of his left hand and on his right elbow. It is

further alleged by the informant that the aforesaid incident

took place when he demanded Rs. 22/- from Samsuddin

Mian @ Sama for the breakfast. It is further alleged that,

with an intention to kill the informant, Samsuddin Mian @

Sama gave a knife blow to him. During the night he has

also broken earthen stove and also took away money from

the galla (money box) and also threw refined oil tin. The

incident was witnessed by Harihar Mandal, Suresh Mandal

and Arun Kumar Dey.

6. Upon aforesaid written application, F.I.R., being

Karon P.S. Case No. 48/2011 dated 26.06.2011 was

registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 379, 427 and

504 of IPC. After due investigation, charge-sheet was

submitted against the accused/convict and the learned

Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and thereafter, the

case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where it was

registered as Sessions Trial No. 258 of 2011. Record reveals

that charges under Sections 323, 307 and 379 of IPC were

framed against the accused and the same were read over

and explained to the accused in Hindi, to which he denied

the same and claimed to be tried.

7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has

examined 07 witnesses in the present case. However, no

witness has been examined on behalf of the defence. The

statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was

recorded, wherein he has simply denied the allegations put

to him.

2026:JHHC:28473

4

8. The learned trial court, after considering the

evidences available on record, convicted the accused under

Sections 379, 307 & 323 of IPC and sentenced him to

undergo R.I. for a period of 07 years and with a fine of

Rs. 5,000/- under Section 307 of IPC and under

Section 379 of IPC sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year and

Section 323 of IPC being petty offence, thus no separate

sentence was imposed. Further, in default of payment of

fine directed to undergo S.I for further 3 months. Being

aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order

of sentence, the present appeal has been preferred by the

appellant/convict.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant/convict

vehemently argued that, in the present case, I.O. has not

been examined and no knife has been recovered. As such,

the appellant is entitled to acquittal on these grounds alone.

He also pointed out the testimonies of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2

and submitted that both these witnesses reached the

alleged place of occurrence i.e. the shop of the informant,

only after the informant had fallen to the ground with

injuries. Therefore, these two witnesses cannot and should

not be treated as eye witnesses to the occurrence. It was

thus, submitted that the only evidence regarding the

commission of the alleged offence by the appellant/convict

is the testimony of informant (P.W.-6). Learned counsel

contended that the version of the incident narrated by the

P.W.-6 cannot and should not be relied upon by this

Appellate Court.

10. In the alternative, learned counsel drew the

attention of this Court to the testimony of P.W.-7, the

doctor, who examined the injured as well as testimony of

2026:JHHC:28473

5

the informant P.W.-6 and submitted that, by no stretch of

imagination, are the ingredients of Section 307 of IPC made

out in the present case. At the most, the case would fall

within the ambit of Section 324 of IPC and considering the

age of the litigation in the present case, the sentence

imposed upon the accused may be modified to the period

already undergone.

11. Per contra, learned A.P.P. for the State submitted

that, in the present case, three injured witnesses have been

examined before the learned trial court and there are only

minor contradictions in their testimonies, which lend

assurance to the fact that they are natural witnesses and

have not been tutored. It was further submitted that

nothing has been brought on record on behalf of the

accused during cross-examination of any of the injured

witnesses which could render the case of prosecution

improbable. The versions of the informant, as well as other

two injured witnesses stand duly corroborated by the

testimony of doctor (P.W.-7). On the aforesaid premise,

submission has been made that no interference by this

Appellate Court is warranted with the finding arrived at by

the learned trial court.

12. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the

materials on record.

13. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has

examined as many as seven witnesses namely, P.W.-1

Suman Kumar Dey , P.W.-2 Prashant Dey, P.W.-3 Harihar

Mandal, P.W.-4 Suresh Mandal, P.W.-5 Abid Hussain,

P.W.-6 Sushant Dey (informant) and P.W.-7 Dr. Arun

Kumar Gupta and apart from the oral evidence of the

witnesses, the prosecution has also proved some

2026:JHHC:28473

6

documentary evidences, these are as Exhibit-P.W.-6/A-

written application, Exhibit- P.W.-7/A-Injury report of

Suman Kumar, Exhibit- P.W.-7/B- Injury Report of

Prashant Kumar Dey, Exhibit- P.W.-7/C Injury Report of

Sushant Dey and the X-Ray plate which has been marked

as ‘X’.

14. The informant of the present case has been

examined as P.W.-6. He deposed in his testimony that,

incident took place on 25.06.2011 and at 07:30 P.M. in the

evening, when the accused Samsuddin Mian @ Sama came

to his shop and started abusing him. He further stated that,

on the same day at noon, Samsuddin Mian @ Sama had

taken breakfast at his shop for Rs. 22/- but did not make

payment despite being asked to do so and after extending

threats left the shop. It is further stated by the informant

that the accused caught hold of his wrist and when he tried

to free himself, Samsuddin Mian @ Sama took out a knife

from his waist and gave a knife blow to him. When the

informant tried to save himself, then knife struck his thigh

above the knee causing an injury from which blood started

oozing. The accused thereafter gave second knife blow on

his head. The informant raised an alarm, upon which, his

brother Prashant Dey P.W.-2 who had a shop nearby, and

his nephew Suman Kumar Dey P.W.-1 came there and tried

to rescue him. The accused also assaulted them. Prashant

sustained knife injury on the palm of his right hand while

Suman sustained injury to the finger of his left hand and

his right elbow. It is further stated that there was some

money in the galla (money box) though the money was not

counted, so the informant could not ascertain the exact

amount. According to him, it was approximately rupees two

2026:JHHC:28473

7

thousands, which was taken away by the accused. He

further stated that the accused also threw refined oil tin.

After the incident, the informant alongwith others went to

the police station, but as the Officer-in-charge was not

present, they returned. On the following day at about 10:00

-10:30 A.M., they again went to the police station where the

informant submitted a written application, which has been

marked as Ext.-6/A.

In his cross-examination, he has stated that the

accused had previously visited his shop on several

occasions and used to visit it frequently. He further stated

that he was acquainted with the name of the accused’s

father prior to this incident. The suggestion was put to him

on behalf of the accused that the accused had neither given

a knife blow to the informant nor assaulted him and no

such incident as alleged by the informant had taken place.

It was further suggested that after having breakfast at the

informant’s shop in the noon the accused had paid Rs.

100/- note, but the informant did not return the balance

amount and, when the accused demanded the same the

informant created a commotion.

15. P.W.-2, Prashant Dey is the brother of the

informant. He has deposed that, upon hearing the

commotion, he came to the place of occurrence and saw the

accused assaulting the informant with a knife, when he

intervened he sustained injuries on the finger of his right

hand and the accused also took money from the galla

(money box) and also threw refined oil tin. He further stated

that the accused broke the chulha (earthen stove).

In his cross-examination, a suggestion was put to

this witness that, when he reached at the place of

2026:JHHC:28473

8

occurrence, the accused was stating that he had paid a

large amount of money and the informant should return the

remaining amount after deducting Rs. 22/-. He admitted

that he had not himself seen galla. In para-23 of his cross-

examination, he stated that, when he reached the place of

occurrence, he saw blood was oozing from his brother as

well as from his son who had sustained injuries on his knee

and hand.

16. P.W.-1, Suman Kumar Dey, is the nephew of the

informant (P.W-6) and son of Prashant Dey (P.W.-2). He has

deposed that, upon hearing commotion he went to the shop

of his uncle, Sushant Kumar Dey. There, he saw

Samsuddin Mian @ Sama assaulting his uncle Sushant Dey

and giving him a knife blow on his leg as a result of which,

blood started oozing from the injury. When he intervened to

save his uncle, Samsuddin Mian @ Sama gave him knife

blow on the elbow of his right hand and finger of his left

hand, causing injuries to him. He further stated that

thereafter, his father, Prashant Dey had also come there to

save his uncle, whereupon Samsuddin Mian @ Sama

caused injury to him as well. Samsuddin Mian @ Sama took

Rs. 2,000/- from the galla (money box) and threw a tin of

refined oil and also broke the Chulha (earthen stove).

In his cross examination, he stated that when he

reached the shop of his uncle, he found his uncle lying

there in injured condition. He further stated that while

attempting to catch hold of Samsuddin Mian @ Sama and

extricate his uncle from him, both he and his father

sustained injuries. He also stated that his uncle had told

that Rs. 2,200/- had been stolen.

2026:JHHC:28473

9

17. P.W.-3, Harihar Mandal, is an employee of the

informant. He has deposed that, at the time of incident, he

had gone to ease himself and upon his return, he saw knife

injuries on the thigh and head of the informant. When he

enquired from the informant about the incident, the

informant told him that the accused had caused the

injuries with a knife. He had also seen Suman Kumar Dey

in an injured condition.

In his cross-examination, he has stated that no

incident had taken place in his presence.

18. P.W.-4, Suresh Mandal has also seen injury on the

person of Sushant Dey, Prashant Dey and Suman Dey while

he was returning to his home after attending a feast and

they informed him that Samsuddin Mian @ Sama had

caused injury with a knife.

19. P.W.-7, Dr. Arun Kumar Gupta is the doctor. He

has examined P.W.-1 Suman Kr. Dey, P.W.-2 Prashant Kr.

Dey and P.W.-6 Sushant Kumar Dey. In his deposition, he

stated that he examined P.W.-6 Sushant Kumar Dey and

found penetrated wound over his right thigh and the size of

the wound was 1/2" wide and 1" deep. Edges of the wound

were sharp and he had also having abrasion over left

forehead of size 1/2" x 1/2". He opined that the wound was

caused by sharp-cutting weapon and abrasion by hard

blunt substance and the nature of injury was simple. He

further stated that he had prepared the injury report having

his signature at point-A, which has been marked as Ext.

PW-7/C.

20. P.W.-7, the Doctor has further stated that he has

examined P.W.-2 Prashant Kr. Dey and noticed swelling

over palm in between his thumb and the first finger. He had

2026:JHHC:28473

10

advised X-ray and the patient got X-ray done and brought

the X-ray plate. The X-ray plate was revealing fracture of

fifth metacarpal bone, which has been exhibited as Mark-A.

He further opined that injury appears to be caused by hard

and blunt substance and was grievous in nature and stated

that he had prepared the injury report having his signature

at point-A, which has been marked as Ext. PW-7/B.

21. He further stated that he has also examined P.W.-1

Suman Kr. Dey and found lacerated wound on middle finger

of his left hand and the size of wound was 1" x 1/2" x skin

deep and also lacerated wound having abrasion over right

wrist and over right elbow. He further opined that the injury

appears to be caused by hard and blunt substance and the

nature of injury was simple and stated that he had

prepared the injury report having his signature at point-A,

which has been marked as Ext. PW-7/A.

In his cross-examination, the doctor has stated

that all the injured were treated as outdoor patient and

were not admitted as indoor patient and no injury on the

person of any injured was sufficient to cause death in

ordinary course, as none of the injury was dangerous to life.

He has also stated that abrasion can be sustained by nails

scratch and by rubbing against rough surface and lacerated

wound can be sustained by fall also.

22. It transpires from the testimony of the informant,

Sushant Dey (P.W.-6), that on 25.06.2011 at about 07:30

P.M. in the evening, the accused Samsuddin Mian @ Sama

came to the informant’s shop and abused him. Earlier, on

the same day at the noon, he had breakfast worth Rs.

22/- from informant’s shop but refused to make payment

and, after extending threats, left the shop. Thereafter, in the

2026:JHHC:28473

11

evening, the appellant/convict caught hold of the

informant’s wrist and when the informant resisted, the

accused assaulted him with a knife, causing injuries on his

thigh above the knee and thereafter delivering another knife

blow on his head. Upon the informant raising an alarm, his

brother, Prashant Dey and nephew Suman Kumar Dey, who

had shop nearby, arrived at the spot to rescue him. They

were also assaulted by the accused as a result of which

Prashant sustained injuries on his right palm while Suman

sustained injuries on his finger and elbow. Moreover, it is

also stated that the accused had taken money from the

galla (money box).

23. However, Suman Kumar Dey (P.W.-1), in his

testimony has stated that upon going to the shop of his

uncle, Sushant Kumar Dey (P.W.-6), he saw the accused

Samsuddin Mian @ Sama assaulting his uncle and inflicting

a knife blow on his leg, as a result of which bleeding

started. When this witness intervened to rescue his uncle,

the accused also assaulted him, inflicting a knife blow on

the elbow of his right hand and another on the finger of his

left hand, thereby causing injuries to him as well. However,

in cross-examination, this witness stated that when he

reached the shop of his uncle, he found his uncle lying in

an injured condition. He further stated that while he was

attempting to apprehend the accused Samsuddin Mian @

Sama and extricate his uncle from his clutches, both he

and his father sustained injuries.

24. Prashant Dey (P.W.-2), is the brother of the

informant who has deposed in consonance with testimony

of P.W.-6 in his examination-in-chief. However, in his cross-

examination, he has stated that when he reached at the

2026:JHHC:28473

12

place of occurrence, he found blood oozing from the person

of his brother as well as from his son who sustained

injuries to his knee and hand. P.W.-3 has also stated that

he saw the knife injuries on the thigh and head of P.W.-6.

P.W.-4 has also seen injury on the person of Sushant Dey

(P.W.-6). Despite certain contradictions in the testimony of

witnesses, it can safely be inferred that P.W.-1 and P.W.-2

sustained injuries at the hands of the appellant/convict

while they were attempting to apprehend him.

25. The testimony of P.W.-6 further finds corroboration

from the evidence of P.W.-7, the doctor, who has proved the

injury report of P.W.-6, as Exhibit- P.W.-7/C and injury

reports of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 as Exhibit- P.W.-7/B and

P.W.-7/A, respectively.

26. The I.O in the present case has not been examined

and the knife which was the weapon of offence has

admittedly not been recovered. However non-recovery of the

weapon by itself, is not at all fatal to the prosecution case.

At the same time, owing to non-recovery of weapon, its

dimension including the length of the blade, cannot be

ascertained. P.W.-7, the doctor, has stated that P.W.-6 had

sustained the injury where the size of his wound measuring

1/2" wide and 1" deep and he had also having abrasion over

left forehead of size 1/2" x 1/2" and the size of wound of

P.W.-1 was 1" x 1/2" x skin deep and also lacerated wound

having abrasion over right wrist and over right elbow and

this witness has further opined that the nature of injuries

were simple and P.W.-2 had sustained injury of grievous

nature as his fifth metacarpal bone got fractured and the

above injured witnesses got injury by hard and blunt

substance. Moreover, the Doctor has also opined that no

2026:JHHC:28473

13

injury was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course.

Therefore, the nature of the injuries, dimension and depth

coupled with the medical opinion, do not suggest the use of

long bladed weapon.

27. It is apposite to mention here that in order to

sustain a conviction under Section 307 of IPC, the

prosecution must establish that the act was done with such

intention or knowledge that if death had been caused, the

offence would amount to murder. The presence of intention

or knowledge is sine qua non. When assessing whether an

offence committed falls under the provision of Section 307

of IPC, the intention to commit the offence can be gathered

from attending circumstances such as the nature of the

weapon, the seat of injury, the severity of the blow, and the

surrounding circumstances, as such, it is the intention or

knowledge with which the act was committed which is to be

considered. The ingredients of the Section are satisfied if the

prosecution is able to prove the intent and for its execution,

commission of some overt acts. The Hon’ble Supreme Court,

in the case of Sivamani v. State reported in 2023 SCC

OnLine SC 1581 has discussed the law prevailing around

Section 307 of IPC in the following manner:—

“9. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554, the Court

held that to sustain a conviction under Section 307, IPC, it was not

necessary that a bodily injury capable of resulting in death should have

been inflicted. As such, non-conviction under Section 307, IPC on the

premise only that simple injury was inflicted does not follow as a matter

of course. In the same judgment, it was pointed out that ‘…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.’ The position that because a fatal injury was not sustained alone

does not dislodge Section 307, IPC conviction has been reiterated in Jage

Ram v. State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 366 and State of Madhya

Pradesh v. Kanha, (2019) 3 SCC 605. Yet, in Jage Ram (supra)

and Kanha (supra), it was observed that while grievous or life-threatening

injury was not necessary to maintain a conviction under Section 307, IPC,

‘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 inflicted can be

considered to infer intent.”

2026:JHHC:28473

14

28. Considering the above legal proposition and the

evidence discussed in the preceding paragraphs, this Court

is of the considered view that the act of the

appellant/convict arose out of a quarrel and that, during

the said scuffle, the appellant/convict did inflict a knife

blow upon P.W.-6 (informant). P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 also

sustained injuries while intervening and getting hold of the

appellant/convict. As opined by the P.W.-7 (doctor) the

injuries sustained to the P.W.-6 and P.W.-1 were simple in

nature, whereas, P.W.-2 sustained a fracture of the

metacarpal bone of his hand, which was grievous in

nature. It has also come from the mouth of P.W.-6

(informant/injured) that he and the appellant/convict were

known to each other and there was no previous enmity

between them. In the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot,

by any stretch of imagination, be said that the

appellant/convict had any premeditated design or intention

or knowledge to cause death of the informant (P.W.-6) or

the other injured persons.

29. On the overall facts and circumstances of the case,

this Court is of considered view that, though the

appellant/convict had caused injuries by knife to the

injured persons, the requisite intention or knowledge to

cause death, as contemplated under Section 307 of IPC, is

not established beyond reasonable doubt.

30. As per opinion of the doctor (P.W.-7), the injuries

sustained by P.W.-1 & P.W.-6 were simple in nature.

However, it stands established for the evidence on record

that such injuries were caused by means of a knife.

Accordingly, the ingredients of an offence punishable under

Section 324 of IPC are made out.

2026:JHHC:28473

15

31. So far as the injury sustained by P.W.-2 is

concerned, P.W.-7, the doctor, stated that he noticed

swelling over the palm, between thumb and the first finger

and the X-ray examination revealed a fracture of the fifth

metacarpal bone. P.W.-2 has also stated his testimony that

the injury was caused by knife. Needless to say, a fracture

may also be caused by a knife if the injury is inflicted with

its blunt part. In view of the fracture having been detected

and the doctor having opined the injury to be grievous in

nature, the ingredients of an offence punishable under

Section 326 of IPC are made out.

32. Accordingly, conviction of the appellant/convict

under Section 307 of IPC is altered to one under Sections

324 and 326 of IPC, in respect of the injuries caused to the

respective inured persons.

33. As far as the offence punishable under Section 379

of IPC is concerned, there is inconsistency in the evidence

of P.W.-1 and P.W.-6 regarding the amount allegedly taken

by the appellant/convict. Even if the matter is examined

from another perspective, the allegation appears

improbable. After the informant (P.W-6) had sustained the

injury caused by the appellant/convict, his brother (P.W.-2)

and nephew (P.W.-1) were present at the shop and

naturally, other persons also gathered there. In such

circumstances, there was hardly an opportunity for the

appellant/convict to take money from the galla (cash box).

In these circumstances, the possibility of an embellishment

or discrepancy regarding the alleged theft of money cannot

be ruled out. Consequently, the appellant/accused is

entitled to the benefit of doubt in respect of the charge

under Section 379 of IPC.

2026:JHHC:28473

16

34. Resultantly, the appellant/convict is found guilty

under Sections 324 and 326 of IPC. Record reveal that

appellant/convict has remained in judicial custody for

about four months, out of the sentence imposed by the

learned trial court. Since, the incident pertains to the year

2011 and the appellant/convict is facing the rigors of

litigation for about fifteen years, this Court is of view that

ends of justice would be met, if sentence awarded to the

appellant/convict is modified to the period of sentence

already undergone. Therefore, the impugned judgment is

varied only to the extent that the conviction of the

appellant stands modified to that under Sections 324 and

326 of IPC and the sentence imposed is also reduced to the

period already undergone, however, the fine imposed is

maintained.

35. Consequently, the judgment of conviction dated

10.01.2017 and order of sentence dated 12.01.2017 passed

by the learned 2

nd Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Fast

Track Court (Rape Cases), Deoghar in Sessions Trial No.

258 of 2011 are, hereby, modified to the above extent.

36. The instant criminal appeal being, Criminal Appeal

(S.J.) No. 192 of 2017 is, hereby, partly allowed.

37. Since, the appellant is on bail, he is discharged

from the liability of his bail bonds.

38. Let the trial court record be sent back to the court

concerned forthwith.

39. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi

Rajnish /- N.A.F.R.

Dated: 21/09/2026

Uploaded on