Kamu Kisku Aged About 41 Years Son Of ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 9856 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Kamu Kisku Aged About 41 Years Son Of ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 October, 2024

Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

                Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.598 of 2018

 [Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence
 dated 12.04.2018/18.07.2018, passed by learned 3rd
 Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Session Case No.333
 of 2012]
                        ------
 1. Kamu Kisku aged about 41 years son of Babloo Kiskoo,
 2. Sunil Kisku aged about 31 years son of Babloo Kisku
 3. Diwakar Kisku aged about 30 years son of Babloo Kisku
 4. Ramdhani Soren aged about 65 years wife of Babloo Kisku.
      All   Residents    of   village-Jhiluwa,           P.O.      +    P.S.-Sarath,
      District-Deoghar                   ....     ....      ....         Appellants
                                Versus
 The State of Jharkhand                  ....     ....      ....       Respondent
                                         ------
                                         PRESENT
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
                                       ------
 For the Appellant              : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
                                  Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate
 For the Respondent             : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, A. P.P.
                                         ------
 CAV On 18/09/2024                           Pronounce On 04 / 10/2024
Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of

conviction and sentence of the appellants dated

12.04.2018/18.04.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Deoghar in Session Case No.333 of 2012 arising out of

Sarath P.S. Case No.66 of 2012 (hereinafter called the impugned

judgment), whereby and whereunder the appellant No.1 has

been held guilty for the offence under sections 302 of Indian

Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigors imprisonment for

life along with fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation. The

appellant Nos.2 to 4 namely Sunil Kisku, Diwakar Kisku and

Ramdhani Soren have been held guilty for the offence under

Section 307 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo

rigors imprisonment of 7 years along with fine of Rs.5,000/- each

with default stipulation.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is based upon

fardbayan of one Gobardhan Kisku recorded by A.S.I. namely

Narendra Kumar of Sarath Police Station dated 10.05.2012 at

about 11:00 hours at P.S.C. Sarath, stating inter alia that on

10.05.2012 at about 9:00 AM, while the informant was

irrigating vegetables in his field, meanwhile, he received

information from his nephew that Kamu Kisku, Sunil Kisku,

Diwakar Kisku are demolishing his house. The Informant

rushed to his home along with his brother Ramesh Kisku(since

deceased) and protested against the illegal demolition of the

house, but the accused persons were armed with swords,

farsas, lathis and dandas started assaulting and abusing them

with intention to kill. It is further alleged that Kamu Kisku

gave a sword blow on the head of Ramesh Kisku, who got

severe head injury and was referred to RIMS, Ranchi for better

treatment, where he ultimately died and other family members

of the informant have also sustained injuries through deadly

weapons.

On the basis of above information, FIR was registered

and charge of investigation was taken by A.S.I. Narendra

Kumar, Officer-in-Charge of Sarath Police Station. In course of

investigation, inquest report of the deceased was prepared and

dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. The

Investigating Officer has interrogated the several witnesses

and found sufficient evidence against the accused persons and

submitted charge-sheet for the offences under sections 447,

323, 326, 307, 504 and 302 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code

against the above named accused persons. After taking

cognizance, the case was committed to court of Sessions,

where S. Case No.333 of 2012 was registered and in due course

came to file of Additional Sessions Judge-III, Deoghar for

favour of trial and disposal.

3. Charges were framed against all the accused persons for the

offences under sections 447, 323, 326, 307, 504 and 302 read

with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code to which they pleaded

not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In course of trial, altogether 11 witnesses were examined by

the prosecution to substantiate the charges levelled against the

accused persons. Apart from the oral testimony of witnesses

following documents were also adduced:-

Ext.1:- Fardbayan of Gobardhan Kisku recorded by

ASI Narendra Kumar, Sarath Police Station.

Ext.1/1:- Statement of informant-Gobardhan Kisku

recorded by S.I. A.G. Imam Khan of Bariyatu Police

Station recorded on 12.05.2012 at about 12:15 hours at

Ranchi.

Ext.2:- Signature of Gobardhan Kisku on inquest

report.

Ext. 3 to 3/4:- Five injury reports

Ext.1/2:-Requisition and endorsement on fardbayan.

Ext.4 to 4/4:- requisition for treatment and preparation

for injury report of injured persons.

5. The case of accused persons, in their statement recorded under

section 313 of Cr.PC is denial from occurrence and false

implication due to land dispute. However, no oral or

documentary evidence has been adduced by defence.

6. The learned trial court after apprising and evaluating the oral

as well as documentary evidence available on record has held

the appellants guilty and sentenced them as stated above.

7. Learned senior counsel for the appellants, Mr. A.K. Kashyap,

Advocate, assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence of

the appellants has vehemently argued that the trial court has

miserably failed to appreciate that there are vital

contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses

regarding genesis, manner and place of occurrence. The

prosecution has suppressed the material fact that in the same

occurrence, the appellants were also brutally assaulted and

there was exchange of assault from both sides due to land

dispute, which happened in a sudden manner in free fight

without any pre-meditation. The prosecution has failed to

explain the injuries sustained by the accused persons, hence,

the story projected by the prosecution witnesses is wholly

unreliable and cannot be the basis for conviction of the

appellants. It is further submitted that most of the witnesses

examined by the prosecution are highly interested witnesses

and belonging to the same family i.e. P.W. 1 Bulet Kisku(son of

the deceased), P.W. 4 Gita Muni Marandi (Wife of the

informant) , P.W.5 Jiyamuni Hembrom (wife of late Ramesh

Kisku) and P.W. 7 Gobardhan Kisku(the informant) and other

witnesses are also related to each other. No independent

villagers have been examined by prosecution to corroborate

the prosecution story. The manner of occurrence as projected

by the witnesses does not correspond the respective injury

report of the injured persons. The learned trial court has also

failed to appreciate that counter FIR was also instituted by the

appellant No.1 for the offences under section 307 of Indian

Penal Code against the informant Gobardhan Kisku and others

with regard to the same occurrence, which has not been jointly

tried with this case resulting in serious prejudice in the defence

of the appellants and proper appreciation of entire facts and

circumstances of the case. It is further submitted that the

doctor, who has conducted post-mortem on the dead body of

the deceased Ramesh Kisku has not been examined and the

prosecution has failed to prove the exact cause of death of the

deceased. The injuries sustained by the deceased were found

to be abrasions and lacerations, which were simple in nature

caused by hard and blunt substance and not sufficient in

ordinary course of nature to cause death, which also suggests

that there was no intention on the part of the appellants to

commit murder of the deceased. Other injured persons have

also sustained simple injuries and there is no repetition of

blow, which clearly indicates that there was no intention to

commit murder of the injured persons so as to attract the

offence under section 307 of Indian Penal Code.

8. In the alternative, it is contended that in any view of the

matter, the offence of murder is not constituted in this case

rather the genesis and manner of occurrence and also in view

of the injury sustained by the deceased, the offence falls under

Section 304 part-II of the Indian Penal Code and the injuries

caused to other injured persons falls under sections 323 and

324 of the Indian Penal Code. The quantum of the sentence

awarded against the appellants is also disproportionate to

their guilt. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order of

conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside.

9. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for

the State controverting the aforesaid points of argument raised

on behalf of the appellants, submitted that the learned trial

court has very wisely and aptly considered over all evidences

available on record and arrived at right conclusion. The

prosecution has proved the charges against the appellants

beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore, there is no illegality

or infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and

sentence of the appellants calling for any interference. There is

no merit in this appeal, which is fit to be dismissed.

10. For better appreciation of contentions raised on behalf of the

respective parties and to arrive at right conclusion, it is

apposite to deal with the testimony of the ocular witnesses,

particularly, the injured persons of this case.

11. P.W.7, Gobardhan Kisku: is the informant-cum-injured.

According to his evidence on 10.05.2012 at about 9:00 AM, he

was irrigating his vegetable filed, meanwhile, his nephew

came and informed that the accused persons Diwakar Kisku,

Sunil Kisku and Ramdhani Soren and others are demolishing

their house. He suddenly rushed towards his home and saw

the accused persons were demolishing the wall of the house

and abusing to his family members. Upon protest, Kamu

Kisku gave a sword blow. with intention to kill his father

namely Ramesh Kisku. Diwakar Kisku assaulted by farsa to

this witness on head causing severe injuries. Sunil Kisku gave

farsa blows on head to Prakash Kisku and Ramdhani Soren

gave lathi blows on head of Gita Muni Marandi. Ramdhani

Soren also gave lathi blows on leg to Jiyamuni Hembrom. All

the injured persons were brought to Sarath hospital from

where they were referred to Sadar Hospital, Deoghar and

Ramesh Kisku was referred to RIMS, Ranchi, where during the

course of treatment, he died. He has further proved that his

fardbayan was recorded by the ASI Narendra Kumar at Sarath

Hospital. His statement was also recorded at RIMS, Ranchi by

the local police and inquest report of the deceased was also

prepared in his presence.

In his cross-examination, this witness admits that in

the Sarath Hospital, Kamu Kisku and Sunil Kisku were also

under treatment along with this witness and other injured

persons but he has not seen any injury caused to Kamu Kisku

and Sunil Kisku and he also admits that Kamu Kisku has also

lodged a case against this witness and his family members

namely Prakash Kisku, Chabbilal Kisku and the deceased

Ramesh Kisku. He has denied the suggestion of defence that

this witness and his family members have attacked on the

accused persons and in order to save themselves from the

cross-case, this false case has been instituted.

12. P.W.4 Gita Muni Marandi: (wife of the informant-cum-injured

witness). According to her evidence, she came out from the

house hearing hullah and saw that Kamu Kisku, Diwakar

Kisku, Sunil Kisku and Ramdhani Soren were demolishing her

house and abusing her family members. Upon protest, Kamu

Kisku gave sword blow to Ramesh Kisku on head; Gobardhan

Kisku was assaulted by farsa by Diwkar Kisku on head,

Prakash Kisku was also assaulted on head with spade by Sunil

Kisku, Ramdhani Soren assaulted with lathi to Jiyamuni

Hembrom on her legs; Diwkar Kisku assaulted this witness

with lathi on head. All the injured persons were brought to

the Sarath Hospital and Ramesh Kisku was referred to RIMS,

Ranchi where he died during the course of treatment.

In her cross-examination, she admits that a cross-case

has been lodged by Kamu Kisku for the occurrence of same

day against her husband and other family members. The

incident took place due to dispute of land between the parties.

13. P.W.5 Jiya Muni Hembrom: who happens to be wife of the

deceased Ramesh Kisku, has also stated in the same manner

as P.W.4 Gita Muni Marandi and stated that she was assaulted

on her right leg with lathi blow given by Ramdhani Soren. All

the injured persons were brought to the Sarath Hospital and

thereafter Sadar Hospital, Deoghar and Ramesh Kisku was

referred to RIMS, Ranchi, where he died.

In her cross-examination, she admits that the accused

persons are her gotiya(agnates) and there is land dispute

between the parties; the disputed land belongs to the

informant party and they have also constructed a house over

which the accused persons are raising false claim. She has also

admitted that a cross-case has been lodged by the accused

persons for the same day occurrence against her and other

family members.

14. P.W. 10 Prakash Kisku: is another injured witness. According

to his evidence, on the date of occurrence at 9:00 AM, all the

accused persons namely Kamu Kisku, Diwakar Kisku, Sunil

Kiski and Ramdhani Soren were demolishing his house. At

that time, no one was present and all family members had

gone to the vegetable field for the purpose of irrigation. This

witness informed all the family members at the field who

returned to home and an altercation took place. Meanwhile,

Ramesh Kisku was assaulted by sword on his head by Kamu

Kisku. Gobardhan Kisku was also assaulted by farsa on his

head and Sunil Kisku gave a sword blow on the head of this

witness. Sunil Kisku and Ramdhani Soren have also assaulted

to Jiyamuni Hembrom and Gitamuni Hembrom by pelting

stones and bricks. All the injured persons were brought to

PSC, Sarath, thereafter sent to Sadar Hospital, Deoghar and

Ramesh Kisku was referred to RIMS, Ranchi where he died in

course of treatment.

In cross-examination, this witness admits that the

accused persons have also lodged a case against the informant

party for the occurrence of same day, he also admits that police

have not recorded his statement during investigation and he

has given evidence for the first time in the court.

15. P.W. 8 Dr. Suresh Mahto: is the medical officer of PSC, Sarath,

who has examined all the injured persons of this case.

16. According to this witness, on 10.03.2012 at about 11:15 AM, he

examined the injured Gobardhan Kisku and found following

injuries on his person:

Injuries

(i) Lacerated wound on frontal region left side.

(ii) Nature of the wound simple nature, the age of injury within three hours.

Gita Muni Marandi was examined by me on same day and

found : -

(i) Lacerated wound found on occipital reason 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/4 cm Nature of the wound is simple.

Nature of weapon - Heard and blunt Age of wound three hours.

I examined on the same day injured Prakash Kisku, S/o

Chhabilal Kisku found following injuries:

(i) Lacerated wound on frontal reason sized 2x1 /2x1/4 cm Nature of the wound simple.

Nature of weapon - Heard and blunt Age of Injury within three hours.

I examined on the same day the injured Ramesh Kisku, S/o

Haradhan Kisku and found following injuries:

(i) Incised wound in mid of the frontal reason size 3 x 1/2 x 1/4 cm

(ii) Incised wound on pretrial reason left side size 1x1/2 x ¼ cm Present is unconscious and refereed to Sadar Hospital, Deoghar.

Opinion: reserved for Sadar Hospital report. Nature weapon sharp cut head Age of wound within three hours.

I examined same day Jeeya Muni Hembram, W/o Ramesh

Kisku and found following injuries:

(i) Swelling on left leg posteriors accepet size 4x3 cm Nature of Injuries simple nature of weapon heard and blunt.

Age of Injuries - 3 hours Above five injury reports are marked Ex.3, 3/1, 3/2, 3/3 and 3/4 respectively.

17. P.W.11 Dr. Tulsi Mahto: is a Professor-cum-HOD of Forensic

Medicine and Toxicology of RIMS, Ranchi and has proved the

autopsy conducted by Dr. Sima Kumari on the dead body of

the deceased Ramesh Kisku on 12.05.2012 at about 15:30 hours.

As per post-mortem report of the deceased following

was found:-

The body was of average built. Rigors mortis were

present all over the body. Abdomen slightly distended. Head

was bandaged.

External Finding

(i) 3 cm x 2cm left side of forehead

(ii) 2 cm x 2 cm left cheek.

(iii) 3cm x 2 cm back of left forearm

(iv) 6 cm x 2 cm left scapular region

(v) 4 cm x 3 cm back of left chest middle part.

Lacerated wounds

(i) 3 cm x ½ cm into bone deep, left parietal region

of head

(ii) 5 cm x ½ cm into bone deep, left parietal region

of the head

Lacerated wounds stitched

(i) 6 cm x ½ cm into bone deep with two stitches

over left temporo parietal region of head.

Internal findings

(i) Defuse contusion over left temporo parietal and

occipital region.

(ii) There is crack fracture 16 cm long over left

temporo parietal bone

(iii) There is defuse contusion of brain with presence

of subdural blood and blood clot on both sides

of brain more on right sides.

Opinion

Above noted injuries were ante-mortem in

nature caused by sharp and heavy substance( heavy

sharp cutting weapon).

The death is due to brain injuries.

Time since death 3 to 18 hours from the time of

post-mortem examination.

Rest of organs were normal and congested. Left

side of the heart was empty and right side contained little

blood. Stomach contained watery fluid 100 cc. Small intestine

contained gas. Large intestine contained gas and fecal matter.

Urinary bladder was empty. No disease or deformities could

be detected.

He has proved the handwriting and signature of Dr.

Sima Kumari on the post-mortem report which has been

counter signed by Dr. C.S. Prasad, the then Head of

Department, FMT, RIMS, Ranchi.

18. P.W.1 Bullet Kisku is the son of Ramesh Kisku, P.W. 2

Pradhan Kisku, P.W.3 Rasodi Marandi and P.W. 6 Basu

Kisku are local villagers and neighbors of the informant party

respectively, who have also corroborated the testimony of the

injured witnesses as regards the occurrence of assault

committed by the accused persons against the injured

witnesses.

19. P.W.9, S.I. Narendra Kumar is the Investigating Officer of

this case. According to the evidence of this witness, after

assuming the charge of investigation, he visited the place of

occurrence, which is a mud-made room roofed by phus(leaves

and straw) fitted with wooden door. He has also mentioned

the boundary of the place of occurrence but stated nothing

about demolition of any wall or as regards the ownership of

the disputed place where the occurrence took place.

He has recorded the statement of the witnesses and

injured persons and also issued requisition slips for their

treatment and obtained their injury reports. Ramesh Kisku was

referred for better treatment to RIMS, Ranchi, where he died

during treatment and he obtained post-mortem report of the

deceased. After finding sufficient evidence against the accused

persons, he submitted charge-sheet for the offences under

sections 447, 323, 324, 326, 307, 504, 302 r/w Section 34 Indian

Penal Code against the accused persons.

In cross-examination, this witness admits that for the

same day occurrence, accused Kamu Kisku has also lodged an

FIR against the informant and injured persons of this case and

he has investigated that case also. He further admits that

accused Kamu Kisku was also injured, who was sent to

hospital for treatment. He did not find any mark of blood at

the place of occurrence and he has also not recorded the

statement of neighboring inhabitants of the place of occurrence

due to their non-availability.

20. We have given thoughtful consideration to the testimony of

the injured witnesses discussed at length as above. The injury

reports of other injured persons as well as post-mortem report

of the deceased. Admittedly, it is a case of free fight between

the parties and for the same occurrence, the informant party of

this case has also been made accused and were charged for the

offences under sections 323, 324, 326, 307, 447 r/w section 34 of

IPC in S.T. Case No.111 of 2013 and have been held guilty and

sentenced for the offences under sections 323 and 324 of IPC.

Against their conviction and sentence, they have preferred the

appeal being Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.174 of 2021, which has also

been heard and decided together, however a separate

judgment is being delivered. The same Investigating Officer

has conducted the investigation of both the cases.

21. Learned senior counsel for the appellants has laid much

emphasis on the conviction of the appellant no.1 Kamu Kisku

for the offence under section 302 of IPC and pointed out that it

is a case of free fight. Therefore, Exception No.4 appended to

section 300 of IPC is applicable in this case and the offence

comes under culpable homicide not amounting to murder

punishable under part-II of section 304 of IPC.

22. For better appreciation of the above arguments, relevant

provision is extracted here:-

Section 300: Murder:

"Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable

homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is

caused is done with the intention of causing death, or--

(Secondly)-- If it is done with the intention of

causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be

likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm

is caused, or--

(Thirdly)-- If it is done with the intention of causing

bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury

intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary

course of nature to cause death, or--

(Fourthly)-- If the person committing the act knows

that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all

probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely

to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse

for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as

aforesaid.

Exception 4.-- Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed

without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon

a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue

advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.

Explanation:-- It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the

provocation or commits the first assault.

23. In the instant case, the occurrence took place in a sudden

manner while the accused persons were constructing a mud-

made room over the disputed land. It is quite obvious that

there is exchange of assault from both side and both parties

have sustained injuries through use of sword and farsa etc. The

post-mortem report of the deceased does not find mention as

to which injury was responsible to cause death and whether

the injuries sustained by the deceased were sufficient in

ordinary course of nature to cause death. It is also apparent

that the appellant no.1 Kamu Kisku, who himself was badly

injured have been attributed to cause one sword blow given to

the deceased and there is no repetition of any blow on his part.

It is settled law that in order to invoke the exception 4

following requirements must be satisfied:-

(i) It was a sudden fight

(ii) There was no premeditation

(iii) The act was done in heat of passion and

(iv) The assailant had not taken any undue advantage

or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.

The cause of provocation is not relevant nor who offer

the provocation or started the assault is relevant. The number

of wounds caused during the occurrence is not decisive factor

but what is import is that the occurrence must have been

sudden and unpremeditated and the offender must have acted

in a fit of anger. Of course, the offender must not have taken

any undue advantage or acted in cruel manner.

24. In the instant case, the appellant-Kamu Kisku has been

attributed to cause a single sword blow on head of the

deceased in a sudden fight under the heat of passion. It is also

revealed from the evidence that the accused has not taken any

undue advantage from the incident or acted in an unusual or

cruel manner. The appellant no.1-Kamu Kisku alone has been

held guilty for the offence under section 302 of IPC in this case

and the rest of the accused persons have not been held

responsible for murder even with the aid of section 34 of IPC

rather they have been separately convicted in accordance with

their mode of participation in crime for the offence under

section 307 of IPC.

25. In the above mentioned facts and circumstances, we are of the

firm view that this case is squarely covered by Exception-4

appended to section 300 of Indian Penal Code and the guilt of

the appellant no.1 falls under culpable homicide not

amounting to murder punishable under part-II of section 304

of IPC.

26. We have further considered the applicability of offence under

section 307 of IPC against the appellant Nos.2 to 4, who have

faced trial for the offence under sections 447, 323, 324, 307, 504

r/w section 34 of IPC but have been convicted and sentenced

for the offence under section 307 of IPC. The learned trial court

has nowhere discussed in the entire judgment as to how

offence under section 307 of IPC has been proved beyond all

reasonable doubts against these appellants. P.W. 7 Gobardhan

Kisku was assaulted with farsa blow given by Diwakar

Kisku(appellant no.3) causing head injuries to him, appellant

no.2 Sunil Kisku also gave farsa blows on the head of Prakash

Kisku and appellant no.4, Ramdhani Soren gave lathi blows on

Gita Muni Marandi on her head and had also gave lathi blows

on the legs to Jiyamuni Hembrom and in this connection,

injured witnesses have clearly deposed that they have

sustained injury, which are found simple in nature caused by

hard and blunt substance as opined by P.W.8 Dr. Suresh

Mahto. The manner of assault and nature of injuries sustained

by these injured persons does not appear to have been caused

under the circumstances to attract the intention or knowledge

as required for commission of offence under section 307 of IPC

rather we find that only simple injuries have been caused to

these injured persons attracting the offences under sections 323

and 324 of IPC against the appellant Nos.2-4.

27. In view of aforesaid discussion and reasons, we find substance

in this appeal, therefore, conviction and sentence of appellant

no.1 for the offence under section 302 of IPC is altered and

modified to the offence under section 304 part-II of IPC. The

appellant no.1 Kamu Kisku is under judicial custody since the

very inception and has sustained imprisonment for more than

10 years. Therefore, sentence of rigor imprisonment for life

awarded to him is reduced to the sentence of imprisonment

already undergone. Accordingly, the appellant no.1 is directed

to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

28. So far as appellant nos.2 to 4 namely Sunil Kisku, Diwakar

Kisku and Ramdhani Soren are concerned, their conviction for

the offence under section 307 of IPC is set aside and reduced to

sections 323 and 324 of IPC.

It appears that it was the first offence of the appellant

nos.2-4 and there is no previous conviction for any other

offence. Therefore, having regard to facts and circumstances of

the case, nature of offence committed by these appellants, their

age, character and antecedents, we deem it fit expedient in the

ends of justice to extend the benefit of section 4 of Probation of

Offenders Act, 1958. Accordingly, the appellant nos.2-4 are

directed to appear before the concerned trial court within 8

weeks and they shall be duly extended the benefit of Section 4

of Probation of Offenders Act by the concerned trial court after

obtaining report from District Probation Officer and with such

terms and conditions as may be deemed fit by learned trial

court. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of subject to above

observations.

29. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly.

30. Let the copy of this judgment along with record of trial court

be sent back for information and needful.

                                      (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)


                                      (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi
Date:    4 /10/2024
Pappu/- A.F.R.