Jharkhand High Court
Aliajan Mian vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 January, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal No. 1438 of 2006
[Against the judgment of conviction dated 25.09.2006 and order of
sentence dated 27.09.2006 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Court-VII, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 20 of 1996]
1. Aliajan Mian, Son of Late Leelo Mian.
2. Yunus Mian, Son of Late Sokho Mian.
Both are residents of Village- Daldal,
P.S. Dhanwan, District- Giridih.
..... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
.....
For the Appellants : Mr. Deepak Kumar Shah Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P.
.....
P R E S E N T
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
Dated: 28th January, 2025
By Court:- Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Originally this appeal was filed by the three appellants, out
of them, Appellant No.2 Usman Mia has been died during
the pendency of this appeal and to this effect, an affidavit
has been filed by the State. Therefore, this appeal stands
abated as against appellant no. 2 Usman Mian, vide order
dated 06.01.2025 passed by this court.
3. Heard, Mr. Deepak Kumar Shah, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant nos. 1 & 3 and Mr. Sanjay
Kumar Srivastava learned APP appearing for the State.
4. Above named the appellants have preferred this criminal
appeal challenging their conviction and sentence dated
25.09.2006 and 27.09.2006 passed by learned District &
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-VII, Giridih in Sessions
Trial No. 20 of 1996 convicted for the offence under Section
325/34 of the Indian Penal Code, sentenced to undergo R.I.
of three years and fine of Rs.1,000/- each with default
stipulation.
FACTUAL MATRIX
5. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a narrow
compass is that on 18.11.1994 at about 08:30 AM, when the
informant went for nature's call, then accused persons
surrounded and started beating him, resulting which he
sustained injuries on left knee, lower portion of right leg
and also sustained injuries on his wrists. Thereafter, he fell
on the ground. The witnesses of the incident are
daughter-in-law of Dayal Mahto, Isar Mahto, Shilo Mahto,
Jagdish, Toto and other villagers, who belongs to Daldal
Village.
6. On the basis of above information, FIR was registered as
Sadar, Giridih P.S. Case No. 156 of 1994 against the above
named accused persons for the offences under Sections 341,
323, 307, 325/34 of the I.P.C.
7. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer
of the case has submitted charge sheet against accused
persons for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 307, 325/34
of the I.P.C. After taking cognizance of offence, the case was
committed for the trial thereafter, the charges were framed
for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 325, 307 of the
I.P.C., which they denied and claimed to be tried.
8. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the
accused persons altogether six witnesses were examined by
the prosecution.
P.W.-1 : Toto Yadav
P.W.-2 : Asagar Ansari (Informant).
P.W.-3 : Suidu Khatoon.
P.W.-4 : Mennu Khatoon.
P.W.-5 : Dr. Suresh Chandra Sharma.
P.W.-6 : Jyotis Chandra Pathak (formal witness).
9. Apart from oral evidence, following documentary
evidences were also adduced.
Exhibit-1 : Written Report.
Exhibit-1/1 : Endorsement of the Officer-In-
Charge of Police on the written
report.
Exhibit-2 : Injury Report.
Exhibit-3 : Signature of Ayodhayay Rai, then
Officer-In-Charge of Dhanwar P.S.
on formal FIR.
Exhibit-3/1 : Formal FIR.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants instead of challenging
the impugned judgment and order of conviction has
confined his argument on the point of not extending the
benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and has
submitted that there is a case of land dispute between the
parties and due to harvesting of paddy crops. The incident
happened in a sudden manner causing some injuries to the
informant party. Counter case has also been filed by the
present appellants.
11. It is further submitted that it is appellants' first offence as
they have never been convicted earlier for any other
offence, but the learned trial court has not considered the
said aspect of this matter and sentenced the appellants with
Rigorous Imprisonment of three years along with fine of
Rs.1,000/-. Appellants have no criminal background and
after conviction in this case, appellants have also
maintained peace and have not involved in any other
criminal activities. This fact was also not considered by the
learned trial court and plea for extending the benefit of
Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958 has been denied
without recording any special reasons. Hence, the
appellants deserve the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation
of Offenders Act, 1958 instead of awarding of substantive
sentence of imprisonment as imposed by the learned trial
court.
12. Per contra, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has
opposed the aforesaid contentions and defended the
impugned judgment on merits, but so far extending the
benefit of Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958 is concerned,
he has not raised any serious objection.
13. I have gone through the record of the case along with the
impugned judgment and order in the light of the
contentions raised on behalf of both side.
14. The learned trial court has held that the offence under
Sections 341, 323, 307 of the I.P.C. has not been made in this
case and the trial court has held the appellants guilty for the
offence under Section 325/34 of the I.P.C. From perusal of
evidence of injured witnesses, namely, P.W.-2 Asgar Ansari
and his injury report proved by the P.W.-5, Dr. Dr. Suresh
Chandra Sharma, it appears that the doctor has found
following injuries:-
(I) Bruise red color with hematoma 10 cmx6 cm on the
right ankle and feet as well as fracture of tibia bone
(clinically) 3 cm above malleolus. The injury was
caused by hard and blunt substance.
(II) Incised wound with blood clot 1 cmx0.5 cmx0.5 cm,
on right leg anterior aspect 6 cm below the knee.
The injury was caused by sharp cutting weapon
(simple in nature).
(III) Incised wound with blood clot 1.5 cmx0.5 cmx0.5
cm in interior aspect of right leg 2 cm, below the
injury no. 2. The injury caused by sharp cutting
weapon (simple in nature).
(IV) Incised wound with blood clot 1 cmx0.5 cmx0.5 cm
on left leg interior aspect 10 cm below the knee.
Injury is simple in nature and caused by hard and
blunt substance.
(V) Incised wound 2 cmx1 cmx0.5 cm on left leg, 4 cm
below the injury no. 4, injury is simple in nature
caused by sharp cutting weapon.
(VI) Abrasion 12cmx6cm on lateral aspect of left thigh
caused by hard and blunt object (simple in nature).
(VII) Bruise red in colour 8 cmx4 cm on lateral aspect of
right thigh. Injury simple in nature and caused by
hard and blunt substance.
(VIII) Abrasion 5.6 cmx4 cm with haemotoma on left
forearm, injury simple in nature caused by hard
and blunt object.
(IX) Bruise red in colour with haemotoma 4 cmx2 cm on
right forearm wrist and fracture of radius at two
places no. 1, 3 cm above (proximal) to wrist and the
no. 2- 6 cm below elbow joint with surrounding
haemotoma. The injury is grievous in nature and
caused by hard and blunt object.
(X) Bruise red in colour 6.5 cmx3.5 cm on left side front
of chest. Injury simple in nature and caused by hard
and blunt substance.
(XI) Bruise red in colour with haemotoma 6.4 cmx4 cm
on right side back of chest. Injury simple in nature
and caused by hard and blunt object.
(XII) Bruise red in colour with haemotoma 2 cmx2 cm on
forehead. Injury simple in nature and caused by
hard and blunt substance.
The doctor has opined that the injury no. 2, 3, 4 and
5 might have been caused by bhala and rest of the
injury may be caused by iron and lathi.
15. Considering the overall factual background, genesis,
manner of occurrence and the nature of offence committed
by the appellants, their age, character and antecedents, it
appears expedient in the ends of justice to extend the benefit
of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act of 1958
instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment
as awarded by the learned trial court. Therefore, 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 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 for maintaining peace and be of good
behaviour for a period of one year from the date of
furnishing the bond to the satisfaction of concerned Trial
Court. The learned trial court may call for a report from the
concerned District Probation Officer, if so required.
16. Appellants are further directed to appear before the
concerned trial court within three months from the date of
this order and furnish the bail bond as per direction of this
Court.
17. 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 sentence already awarded to
them.
18. In view of aforesaid discussion and reasons, this appeal is
dismissed on merits with the modification in sentence as
stated above.
19. Appellant are on bail, they are discharged from the
liability of their respective bail bonds. Sureties shall also
be discharged.
20. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be
sent back to the court concerned for information and
needful.
21. Pending I.A, if any, is disposed of.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi.
Dated: 28th January, 2025.
Simran/-NAFR
