Jharkhand High Court
Ram Kewal Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1097 of 2005
1. Ram Kewal Prasad
2. Basant Prasad @ Bhola Prasad ..... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
For the Appellants : Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar , Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, APP
-----
5/12.07.2022 Learned defence counsel Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar is present
on behalf of the appellants and learned APP Mr. Jitendra Pandey for the
State is present.
2. Learned defence counsel submitted that this appeal is directed
against the judgment of conviction dated 22.08.2005, passed by 4 th
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum in
Sessions Trial No.69 of 2001, by which both the appellants were
convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323/34 of
IPC and further the learned court below instead of awarding the
sentence, released both the appellants under Section 4(1) of the Probation
of Offenders Act, 1958 on executing bond of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand)
with two sureties to each appellant for a period of one year and both the
appellants were directed that during this period, they shall keep peace
and be of a good behaviour and if they fail to comply with the terms and
condition laid down in the bond, they shall be called upon to receive the
sentence.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted
with the efflux of time, the period of one year of bond is over and there is
nothing on record to show about any adverse report with respect to
maintaining peace and good behaviour. It has further been contended
on behalf of the appellants that the appellants do not want to argue this
case on merit and since no sentence was awarded and only after
executing the bond for maintaining peace and good behaviour, both the
appellants were released and therefore, let this appeal be disposed of
accordingly.
4. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State on the other hand
submitted that as a matter of fact that the learned trial court after
founding the guilt of both the appellants for the offences punishable
under Sections 341 and 323/34 of IPC, they were instead of awarding the
sentence, both the appellants were released under Section 4(1) of the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on executing bond of Rs.5,000/- (five
thousand) with two sureties to each appellant for a period of one year
and both the appellants were directed that during this period, they shall
keep peace and be of a good behaviour and if they fail to comply with
the terms and condition laid down in the bond, they shall be called upon
to receive the sentence and now the appellants do not want to argue this
case on merit and therefore let this appeal be disposed of accordingly.
5. Having taken into consideration the aforesaid submissions
advanced on behalf of the parties, it is found that both the appellants
have been found guilty for the offences under Section 341 and 323/34 of
IPC and they were convicted thereunder and instead of awarding the
sentence, both the appellants were released under Section 4(1) of the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on executing bond of Rs.5,000/- (five
thousand) with two sureties to each appellant for a period of one year
and both the appellants were directed that during this period, they shall
keep peace and be of a good behaviour and if they fail to comply with
the terms and condition laid down in the bond, they shall be called upon
to receive the sentence.
6. Since the period of one year is over and no adverse report is
available against any one of the appellants on record and further the
appellants do not want to argue this case on merit and therefore the
conviction of the appellants for the offences punishable under Section
341 and 323/34 of IPC by the impugned judgment of conviction dated
22.08.2005, passed by 4th Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum in Sessions Trial No.69 of 2001, gets
sustained, inasmuch as they do not want to argue this appeal on merit.
7. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of as above.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
R.Kumar
