Jharkhand High Court
Prakash Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 February, 2025
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 1376 of 2006
[Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated
05.09.2006, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track
Court, Koderma in Sessions Trial No.519 of 1998 (corresponding to G.R.
Case No.424 of 1996]
1. Prakash Yadav, Son of Kewal Mahto
2. Kameshwar Yadav, Son of Kewal Mahto
3. Dineshwar Yadav, Son of Kewal Mahto
4. Yugal Yadav, Son of Kewal Mahto
All residents of Village Tadutand, P.S. Telaiya, District
Koderma.
... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
... Respondent
------
For the Appellant : Ms. Savita Kumari, Amicus Curiae
For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, Addl. P.P.
------
PRESENT
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
Dated- 05.02.2025
By Court:- It appears from the record that during pendency of this
appeal, appellant No.1 viz. Kewal Mahto @ Kewal Gope has
died and appeal in respect of the appellant No.1 has already
been abated vide order dated 06.12.2024.
2. Heard Ms. Savita Kumari, learned amicus curiae
appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. Tarun Kumar,
learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State.
Cr.A(SJ) No.1376 of 2006 Page | 1
3. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and
order of conviction and sentence dated 05.09.2006 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court,
Koderma in Sessions Trial No.519 of 1998 (corresponding to
G.R. Case No.424 of 1996), whereby and whereunder the
appellants have been held guilty for the offences under
Sections 147, 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for
three years for the offence punishable under Section 325 of
the I.P.C. with fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation and
further sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years for the offence
punishable under Section 147 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for one
year for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the I.P.C.
All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
4. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that Saryug
Yadav (informant) has lodged the F.I.R. stating inter alia that
his sister, Srimatia Devi, was married six years ago but her
husband, Kameshwar Yadav (appellant No.3) and in-laws
were torturing her for dowry of Rs.40,000/-. Informant has
further alleged that on 12.06.1996, at around 03:00 P.M.,
informant along with his father and 10 other respectable
persons went to matrimonial house of his sister to resolve the
issue through a Panchayati. Informant has further alleged
that Kewal Singh (one of the accused) gathered 25-30 persons
for the Panchayati but till the evening no Panchayati was
held. However, in the evening, Kewal Mahto (now deceased)
and the brother-in-law of the informant suddenly accused
them of being dacoits and raised an alarm. The informant
along with his father and other persons were surrounded and
attacked with lathis (sticks). Ten members of the informant's
group managed to flee away, but the informant and his father
were severely injured. Informant's father lost consciousness
and when the informant regained consciousness, he realized
that some people were taking them to the hospital.
On the basis of above fardbeyan, the case was instituted
as Koderma (Telaiya) P.S. Case No.221 of 1996 for the
offences under Sections 147, 341, 323 and 325 of the Indian
Penal Code.
5. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was
submitted against the appellants for the offences under
Sections 147, 341, 323, 325, 307 and 498(A) of the I.P.C. and
Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly,
cognizance was taken and subsequently, the case was
committed to the Court of Sessions where Sessions Trial
No.519 of 1998 (corresponding to G.R. Case No.424 of 1996)
was registered. Charges were framed against the accused
appellants under Sections 147, 341, 323, 325, 307 of the I.P.C.
of the Indian Penal Code and two appellants viz. Kewal
Mahto (now deceased) and Kameshwar Yadav have been
separately charged under Section 498(A) of the I.P.C. and
Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act which was read
over and explained to them, to which they denied and
claimed to be tried.
6. In the course of trial, altogether eleven witnesses were
examined and following documentary evidence were also
adduced by the prosecution:
Exhibit 1 : Injury report of Babun Yadav
Exhibit 2 : Injury report of informant
7. After conclusion of trial, the appellants were held guilty
for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as stated above
which has been assailed in this appeal.
8. Learned amicus curiae for the appellants without
touching the merits of the judgment has drawn the attention
Cr.A(SJ) No.1376 of 2006 Page | 4
of the court towards the point of non-extending the benefit of
Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter
referred to as 'The Act of 1958') to the appellants to which
they deserve. It is submitted that appellants have been held
guilty for the offences under Sections 147, 323 and 325 of the
I.P.C. and maximum sentence has been awarded for 3 years
R.I. The present appellants are alleged to have caused injuries
to the informant Sarju Yadav (P.W.7) and his father Babun
Yadav (P.W.9) by hard and blunt substance, which were
opined to be simple in nature except two injuries to the
informant which were opined to be grievous in nature but
not dangerous to his life. The learned Trial Court without
recording any special reasons has denied the benefit of
Section 4 of the Act of 1958 to the appellants. It is further
submitted that during pendency of the appeal, one of the
appellants has died and at the time of impugned judgment in
the year 1998 rest of the appellants were 40 years' old, 36
years' old, 30 years' old and 33 years' old and now they are
above 55 years' old and suffering from several diseases,
therefore, sending the appellants in jail custody after lapse of
three decades, no useful purpose will be solved. Hence,
impugned judgment and order may be modified/altered and
the appellant may be extended the benefit of Section 4 of the
Act of 1958 instead of awarding substantive sentence of
imprisonment as granted by the learned Trial Court and this
appeal may be disposed of.
9. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the
State has not raised any serious objection against the
arguments made on behalf of the appellants rather he has
defended the impugned judgment and order on merits.
10. I have given anxious consideration to the aforesaid
contentions raised on behalf of both side and also perused the
impugned judgment and order along with materials available
on record.
11. It appears that in the course of trial altogether eleven
witnesses were examined by the prosecution out of them
P.W.7 viz. Sarju Yadav, who is the injured witness-cum-
informant and P.W.9. viz. Babun Yadav, who is the injured
father of the informant, who have categorically deposed that
while they were going at Village Yadu Tand for holding the
Panchayati, where informant's sister was married, suddenly
the voice of thief was raised and the occurrence of assault
was started by the appellants along with other accused
persons and Kewal Mahto (deceased) gave a lathi blow on the
head of the informant's father and Yugal, Dinesh and Prakash
assaulted the informant with lathi on his hand and head.
Other accused persons had beaten him with lathis and this
informant sustained injuries on his hand and head.
P.W.-11 Dr. Hari Darshan Singh has examined the
injured P.W.7 viz. Sarju Yadav and found following injuries:
(i) Abrasion over middle scalp.
(ii) Fracture of lower end of right-side ulna.
(iii) Dislocation of right finger in left hand.
(iv) Swelling over right leg.
Above injury Nos.(i) and (iv) were opined to be simple
in nature and injury Nos.(ii) and (iii) were opined to be
grievous in nature which is not dangerous to life. All the
above injuries caused by hard and blunt substance.
P.W.-11 Dr. Hari Darshan Singh has also examined the
injured P.W.9 viz. Babun Yadav and found following injuries:
(i) Lacerated injury over scalp in middle.
(ii) Abrasion over left scapular region.
(iii) Lacerated injury over left elbow interior aspect.
(iv) Lacerated injuries over right forearm over posterior
aspect.
All the above injuries were opined to be simple in
nature caused by hard and blunt substance.
12. From the discussion of the above evidence, there
remains no doubt that the offence under Sections 323 and 325
of the I.P.C. are made out, hence, their conviction under
Sections 323 and 325 is upheld. However, from the perusal of
impugned judgment and order of sentence, it appears that
the learned Trial Court has not recorded any special reasons
for not extending the benefit of Section 4 of the Act of 1958 to
which the appellants deserve as there was family dispute
between the parties. It is pleaded that since the occurrence is
of the year 1996 and appellant in the aforesaid period has also
maintained peace and harmony and the learned Trial Court
without recording any special reasons has declined to extend
the benefit of the Act of 1958 to the appellants.
13. Considering the overall factual background, genesis,
manner of occurrence, the nature of injury sustained by the
informant and his father and the offence committed by the
appellants, their age, character and antecedent, it appears
expedient in the ends of justice to extend the benefit of
Section 4 of the Act of 1958 instead of awarding substantive
sentence of imprisonment immediately as inflicted by the
learned Trial Court. In this view of the matter, appellants are
directed to appear before the concerned Trial Court within
three months from the date of this judgment and the
learned Trial Court is also directed to release the appellants
giving the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act,
1958 upon furnishing bond of Rs.5000/- with one surety of
like amount each to the satisfaction of concerned Trial Court
with condition to maintain peace and be of good behaviour
for a period of one year from the date of furnishing the
bond. The learned Trial Court may also call for a report from
the concerned District Probation Officer, if so desired and
release the appellants on furnishing the aforesaid bond. In
case of violation of the terms and conditions of the bond, the
appellants shall be called upon by the concerned Trial Court
to appear and receive the substantive sentence of
imprisonment already awarded to them by the learned Trial
Court.
Cr.A(SJ) No.1376 of 2006 Page | 9
14. In view of above discussions and observations, this
appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence
to the extent as stated above.
15. Considering the proper assistance of learned amicus
curiae in disposal of this case, we direct the Jharkhand High
Court Legal Services Committee to pay remuneration of
Rs.2,500/- to Ms. Savita Kumari, the learned amicus curiae.
16. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court
record be sent back to the concerned Trial Court for
information and needful.
17. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated: 05/02/2025
Sachin / NAFR
