Jharkhand High Court
Bhudeo Raut vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 January, 2025
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 1296 of 2007
[Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated
07.08.2007, passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge,
(F.T.C.), Dumka, in Sessions Case No. 139 of 2006 ]
1. Bhudeo Raut, Son of Late Dhagu Rout.
2. Champa Devi, Wife of Bhudeo Rout.
Resident of Village - Tatloi, P.S. - Tongra,
District - Dumka.
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
P R E S E N T
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
.....
For the Appellants : Ms. Chandana Kumari, Advocate
Mr. Kumar Swapnil, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P.
.....
JUDGMENT
Dated / 03.01.2025
By Court: Heard Ms. Chandana Kumari, learned counsel for
the appellants assisted by learned counsel Mr. Kumar
Swapnil and Mr. Jitendra Pandey, learned A.P.P.
appearing for the State.
2. Above named appellants have preferred this criminal
appeal challenging their conviction and sentence dated
07.08.2007 passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions
Judge, (F.T.C.), Dumka in Sessions Case No. 139 of
2006, whereby and whereunder, both the appellants
have been held guilty for the offence under Sections
324 of the I.P.C. and sentenced appellant - Budheo
Rout to undergo R.I. for two years while, appellant -
Champa Devi was released upon furnishing bond of
Rs. 2,000/- with two sureties for making peace and be
of good behavior for one year under Section 4 of
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal as depicted
in the written information dated 12.07.2005 of Anath
Rout (P.W.-2) is that at about 8:00 PM on 11.07.2005,
he along with his wife Ratoni Devi (P.W.-1) was taking
dinner. Meanwhile, in the north of his house in the
maize field, his cousin Bhudeo Rout was going, then he
asked why he is moving in the maize field and
destroying the maize. The appellants started abusing
him and aked his wife Champa Devi to bring Sabal, on
which, his wife brought a Sabal and both the
appellants entered into the house of the informant and
started throwing stones and also assaulted him with
Sabal on his head and face. Thereafter, the wife of the
informant tried to stop the accused from beating her
husband, then both the appellants assaulted her also.
She also sustained bleeding injury on her forehead.
The informant out of injury fell down and his wife
somehow took the informant inside the house and
tried to lock the door, on which, the appellants
damaged the gate of their house and again they have
beaten them. Villagers came there and then the
appellants fled away. It was evening, so they could not
visit the Hospital and the police station and on
22.07.2005, they informed the police.
4. On the basis of above information, FIR being
Raneshwar (T) P.S. Case No. 41 of 2005 was registered
against the accused for the offence under Sections
341, 452, 323, 307, 504/34 of the I.P.C.
5. After completion of investigation, the I.O. of the case
has submitted charge sheet against the accused
persons in the aforesaid sections. Cognizance of the
offence was taken and subsequently, the case was
committed to the court of Sessions. Charges have been
framed for the offences under Sections 323, 341 and
307 of the I.P.C., to which they denied, pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against
accused persons, altogether seven witnesses were
examined by the prosecution.
7. Apart from oral evidence of ocular witnesses, following
documentary evidences were also adduced.
Exhibit-1 Series : Signature of Anath Rout
(informant) and endorsement
on written report.
Exhibit-2 Series : Injury Reports.
Exhibit-3 : Formal FIR
8. After closure of evidence from the prosecution side,
the statements of the appellants under Section 313 of
the Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein the appellants
pleaded to be innocent and claimed to be tried.
9. However, on behalf of defence, only one witness has
been examined as D.W.-1, Paresh Murmu, but no
documentary evidence was adduced.
10. The learned trial court, after evaluating the evidence
available on record, found the appellants guilty for
the offence under Section 324 of the I.P.C. and
sentenced as stated above.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants without touching
the merits of the judgment has confined herself
towards non-extension of benefit of Section 4 of
Probation of Offenders Act to the appellant - Bhudeo
Raut, while other co-accused Champa Devei has been
extended the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of
Offenders Act. It is further submitted that both
husband and wife were convicted in this case for the
offence under Section 324 of the I.P.C. but the wife
namely, Champa Devi was released upon furnishing
bond of Rs. 2,000/- with two sureties for making
peace and be of good behaviour for one year under
Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The
case of appellant-Bhudeo Raut stands on similar
footing to that of appellant - Champa Devi. No
previous conviction has been credited in his favour,
rather it was his first offence and admittedly the
dispute arose between the parties on trivial matter
regarding destruction of maize crop. The learned trial
court has not recorded any special reasons for not
extending the same benefit to the appellant - Bhudeo
Raut as was granted to his wife - Champa Devi. The
appellant - Bhudeo Raut deserves the benefit of
Probation of Offenders Act on the basis of above
argument.
12. On the other hand, learned APP appearing for the
State has not raised any serious objection, rather
defended the impugned judgment on merits.
13. I have gone through the record of the case, impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence in the
light of contentions raised on behalf of both side.
14. It appears that although charges were framed for the
offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and allied
offences, but after conclusion of trial, learned trial
court has held the appellants guilty for the offence
under Section 324 of the I.P.C. as simple injury
caused to the injured by pelting stones. It is also
admitted fact that appellant-Bhudeo Raut has no
previous criminal antecedent and has never convicted
for any offence, it was his first offence. The trial court
has extended the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of
Offender Act to co-accused Champa Devi, but has
committed discrimination to the appellant - Bhudeo
Raut without any reasonable cause for the same set of
evidence.
15. Considering the overall factual background, genesis,
manner of occurrence, the nature of injury sustained
by the informant and the offence committed by the
appellant - Bhudeo Rout, his age, character and
antecedent, it is expedient in the ends of justice to
extend the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958 instead of awarding substantive
sentence of imprisonment immediately as inflicted by
the learned trial court.
16. In this view of the matter, appellant - Bhudeo Rout is
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 appellant- Bhudeo Rout 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.
17. The learned trial court may call for a report from the
concerned District Probation Officer, if so desired.
18. In case of violation of the terms and conditions of the
bond, the appellant shall be called upon by the
concerned trial court to appear and receive the
substantive sentence of imprisonment already
awarded to him by the learned trial court.
19. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits with
modification in sentence to the extent mentioned
above.
20. Pending I.A., if any, stand disposed of.
21. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court
record be sent back to the court concerned for
information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated : 03.01.2025
Sunil / N.A.F.R.
