Jharkhand High Court
Nasiruddin Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 January, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.Appeal (S.J.) No. 1065 of 2006
------
1. Nasiruddin Ansari, Son of Md. Hanif.
2. Imamuddin Ansari @ Imamuddin, Son of Mithu Mian,
3. Wahid Ansari, Son of Sikandar Hussain,
4. Likman Ansari @ Lukman Ansari, Son of Noorjahan Mian,
5. Kulauddin Ansari, Son of Md. Hanif.
6. Ishaque Ansari @ Ishaque Mina Ansari, Son of Md. Hanif.
7. Farid Ansari, Son of Allauddin Ansari,
8. Islam Ansari, Son of Md. Hanif,
9. Mustak Ansari, Son of Kalaluddin Ansari,
10. Ramjan Ansari @ Ramjan Mian Son of Allauddin Mian,
11. Ashraf Ansari, Son of Allauddin Ansari,
12. Sahabuddin Ansari, Son of Ramjan Mian,
13. Khaita Mian, Son of Gendo Mian
All residents of village-Dumarchutio, P.S. Nimiaghat, District-
Giridih.
.... .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... Respondent
------
For the Appellant(s) : Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Adv.
For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.
------
PRESENT
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
Dated- 10.01.2025
By Court:- Heard Mrs. J. Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants as well as Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P.
appearing for the State.
2. This instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order
dated 15th July, 2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Fast
Track Court No.9, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 111 of 2004,
whereby and whereunder all the appellants were held guilty and
convicted under Section 342 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo two
years of R.I. All the above appellants were further held guilty for
Page | 1
the offence under Sections 427 and 325 read with 34 of the I.P.C.
and sentenced to undergo three years R.I. with fine of Rs.1000/-
each for the offence under Section 386/34 of the I.P.C., three years
R.I. with fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under Section 325/34 of
the I.P.C. with default stipulation. All the sentences were directed
to run concurrently.
Factual Matrix
3. The prosecution case is based upon the F.I.R. lodged by the
informant stating inter alia that informant is an employee as a
security guard in Dhori Colliery, Bokaro. On 04.03.2003 at about
07:30 P.M., when the informant came from his duty and was
sitting in his general shop, the informant told his son to close the
shop and go to house. In the meantime, accused namely,
Nasiruddin Ansari came there with rod and gave blow on the left
hand of the informant due to which, his hand got fractured. Upon
raising alarm by the informant, other accused persons started
assaulting by rod and lathi to the informant and also began to
break and damage the shop.
4. On the basis of aforesaid information, F.I.R. being Nimiyabat P.S.
Case No. 017/2003 was registered against all accused persons for
the offences under Sections 341, 342, 323, 325, 386, 307, 427, 506
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and
accordingly, cognizance was taken under Sections 341, 342, 323,
325, 386, 307, 427 and 506 read with 34 I.P.C. However, the
Page | 2
appellants were charged for the offence under Sections 342, 386,
427 and 307 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C only.
6. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against all accused
persons, altogether ten witnesses were examined by the
prosecution.
7. Apart from oral evidence of ocular witnesses, following
documentary evidences were also adduced.
Exhibit 1:- Written report by Aslam and Singh by P.W.7.
Exhibit 2:- Writing and signature of P.W.8, Dr. Santosh Kumar on
injury report.
Exhibit 3:- Writing and signature of A.K. Giri identified by P.W.9
on formal F.I.R.
Exhibit 4:- Endorsement on written report by A.K. Giri identified
by P.W.9
Exhibit 5:- Injury report of Sabruddin Khan in pen and signature of
P.W.10, Dr. Jai Prakash Narain.
8. The case of defence is denial from the occurrence and the
appellants are innocent and have not committed any offence rather
they have been falsely implicated in this case. The defence has also
examined three witness and adduced the following documentary
evidence :-
Exhibit A : Panchnama prepared by Dhaneshwar Mahto on which
D.W.1 and Shiva Mahto has signed.
Exhibit B : Public petition to the chief minister on which D.W. has
singned.
Page | 3
Exhibit C: Sale deed No. 1943 dated 24.01.2006 identified by
D.W.2.
Exhibit D: Sale deed executed by Gendo Mian, identified by
D.W.2.
9. After conclusion of trial the learned trial court, after appraisal of
the evidences adduced on behalf of the parties, held the appellants
guilty for the offences under Sections 342, 386/34, 427/34 and
325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentences as stated above.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants without touching the merits of
the judgment has confined himself to the quantum of sentence
against the appellants and submits that the dispute arose due to
land dispute between the parties. In this regard documentary
evidences has also been adduced. It was the first offence of the
appellants, but the learned trial court has not taken into
consideration and without recording any special reasons he has
declined to extend the benefit of Probation Offenders Act, 1958.
Accordingly, impugned judgment and order of conviction and
sentence requires interference by this Court.
11. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has
raised no serious objection as regard to aforesaid contentions
advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants rather
defended the judgment on merits.
12. 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.
Page | 4
13. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the
offences for which the appellants have been convicted and
sentenced, the genesis and manner of occurrence, age, antecedent
and character of the appellants, I am of the considered view that
the trial court has failed to record any special reason for not
extending the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders
Act, 1958 to the appellants instead of awarding substantive
sentence of imprisonment, for which the appellants appear to be
entitled.
14. In view of above discussions and reasons, this appeal is dismissed
on merits with modification in sentence to the extent that the
appellants are directed to be released under Section 4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act 1958 on furnishing the bond of
Rs.5,000/- with one surety instead of undergoing substantive
sentence of imprisonment passed by the concerned trial court,
with condition that they shall be of good behavior and shall
maintain peace for a period of one year from the date of furnishing
bond.
15. Appellants are further directed to appear before the concerned
trial court within three months from the date of this order and
furnish the bond as per direction of this Court.
16. The learned trial court shall obtain report from the District
Probation Officer. In case of violation of terms and conditions of
the bond, the appellants shall be called upon by the learned
concerned trial court to serve the sentence already awarded to
Page | 5
them.
17. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court records be sent
back to the court concerned for information and needful.
18. Pending I.A., if any stands disposed of.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi
Dated:-10.01.2025
Amar/-
Page | 6
