Madan Paswan vs The State Of Jharkhand & Anr.

C.A.V. On: 13^th July, 2026 Pronounced On: 13/08/2026

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.

The petitioner, who is injured in the instant case, has challenged the judgment dated 21.08.2021 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 26 of 2015 by the learned Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj, whereby and whereunder, the learned Appellate Court modified the judgment of conviction and sentence of the opposite party no. 2 passed by the Trial Court in S.T. Case No. 419 of 2008 dated 21.04.2015 and set aside the conviction under Section 326 I.P.C. and convicted the opposite party no. 2 for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. and reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by him along with modifying the fine of Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation.

Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that one Madan Paswan (petitioner) had lent Rs. 8000/- to Umesh Ram, four months age from the date of occurrence. On 02.05.2005 at about 6:30 A.M., Umesh Ram was standing at the door of opposite party no. 2 Lal Kunwar. In the meantime, Madan Paswan reached there and asked for return the amount from Umesh Ram, which was borrowed by him earlier. The opposite party no. 2 Lal Kunwar protested and said that he cannot ask for money from Umesh Ram at his door, then petitioner replied that he has lent the amount earlier to Umesh Ram so he has right to demand his money anywhere. It is alleged that the opposite party no. 2 Lal Kunwar took out a sharp cutting weapon (Balua) form his house and inflicted over the neck of petitioner, to which he tried to rescue himself by his hand, as a result of which, the petitioner sustained cut injury in his left hand at elbow. His cry attracted his father namely Ram Nandan Paswan, who reached there alongwith his nephew namely Raj Kumar Paswan, Pramod Paswan, Bhunesh Paswan and Sudama Paswan and they brought the petitioner to Government Hospital, Hussainabad for his treatment. During treatment, the police arrived there and found the injured petitioner unconscious, therefore, the police recorded statement of his father and also obtained signature of petitioner and Birendra Singh as witness, who were present there.

On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, an F.I.R. being Hussainabad P.S. Case No. 48 of 2005 was registered for the offence under Sections 326, 307 & 120/34 I.P.C. against the opposite party no. 2 and co-accused Umesh Ram.

After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the opposite party no. 2 only for the offence under Section 307 & 326 of the I.P.C. and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions, where Sessions Trial No. 419 of 2008 was registered.

The opposite party no. 2 denied the charges levelled against him and claimed to be tried.

In the course of trial, altogether, 11 witnesses were examined by the prosecution apart from following documentary evidence:-

On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by defence.

The learned Trial Court after scrutinizing the evidence of respective parties, held the opposite party no. 2 guilty for the offence under Sections 326 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for seven years alongwith fine of Rs. 10,000 with default stipulation.

Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court, an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2015 was preferred by the opposite party no. 2 and the same was heard and decided by the learned Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj, whereby the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the opposite party no. 2 has been modified to the extent of imprisonment already undergone by the opposite party no. 2 alongwith fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation, which has been assailed in this revision.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Appellate Court without recording any valid reasons for differing from the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court acted in illegal and perverse manner. It is further submitted that the learned Appellate Court has failed to consider the admitted facts even by the accused showing his presence and involvement in the alleged occurrence. The learned Appellate Court has also failed to consider the statement of eye witnesses, i.e., PW-6, PW-8 and the injured himself. It is further submitted that the learned Appellate Court has failed to consider the evidence of the concerned doctor PW.-10, the investigating officer and other witnesses of prosecution while passing the impugned judgment. Therefore, impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court is liable to be set aside and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is fit to be restored and maintained.

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. assisted by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that the learned Trial Court had passed its judgment on irrelevant materials and without taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Trial Court failed to properly consider the defence evidence in order to test the veracity of prosecution case. It is further submitted that the learned Appellate Court has considered all the materials in threadbare manner and after scrutinizing oral as well as documentary evidence led by both the parties, dis-believed the prosecution case as depicted in the fardbeyan and the learned Appellate Court has recorded the findings pointing out various material contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witness to disbelieve their testimony. The learned Appellate Court has taken different view from the learned Trial Court on the basis of sound reasons. It is further submitted that the learned Appellate Court has power to re-write the judgment appreciating the overall evidence adduced in the case during trial and in appropriate cases may modify the findings of the learned Trial Court. In the instant case, the learned Appellate Court has very wisely and aptly analyzed, appreciated and scrutinized the evidence of both the parties and rightly modified the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court. No such glaring irregularity or error of law in the judgment of learned Appellate Court has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner calling for any interference in this revision. Therefore, this revision has got no merits and fit to be dismissed.

I have gone through the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both the parties.

It appears that the learned Trial Court has convicted the opposite party no. 2 for the occurrence on 02.05.2005 at about 6:30 A.M., wherein it has been alleged that when the present petitioner asked the lent amount from Umesh Ram at the house of the opposite party no. 2, then opposite party no. 2 became enraged and took out a sharp cutting weapon (Balua) form his house and attacked over the neck of the petitioner Madan Paswan, he tried to rescue himself by his hand and sustained cut injury on his left hand elbow. It further appears that the learned Trial Court has acted upon the testimony of witnesses examined by the prosecution only on the basis of their examination-in-chief. The learned Appellate Court has noted down that injury and evidence of PW-10 Dr. Dilip Kumar Singh, in which he has clearly stated during deposition that on 02.05.2005, he was posted at PHC, Hussainabad, where the injured was first treated. According to him, he found incised injury is grievous one. But there is no x-ray plate nor any x-ray report before him. In his cross-examination, this witness has clearly stated that he had not seen his x-ray report, but saw with his naked eye that his bone was cut. The informant in his deposition has not said that whether the x-ray was done or not. PW-8 is the informant. This witness has stated that after sustaining injury he brought his son to the hospital and from hospital, he was referred to Daltonganj and from where he was referred to Ranchi. There is nothing in the evidence that whether x-ray of the elbow was done or not. It clearly appears that there is no injury report of either Sadar hospital or of the RIMS. PW-5 has stated during deposition that he remained in the Daltonganj hospital for 3-4 days and thereafter, he was referred to Ranchi. P.W.-8 being the informant during examination in chief has stated that treatment of his son at Daltonganj was up to one month. He has further deposed that his son remained unconscious up to one month whereas the injured has deposed that he regained his sense on the very next day of occurrence.

I have given anxious consideration to the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court and find that the learned Appellate Court has taken different view from the learned Trial Court on the basis of sound reasons while modifying the impugned judgment passed by the learned trail court against the accused. Therefore, I do not find any merits in this Revision application calling for any interference in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court in Cr. Appeal No. 26 of 2015.

Accordingly, this Criminal Revision is dismissed.

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

Let a copy of this order along with trial court record be sent back to the concerned court immediately for information and needful.