[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Muni Lal Hansda vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 April, 2026
2026:JHHC:10239
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 296 of 2005
--------
1. Muni Lal Hansda,
2. Jaidhan Hansda,
Both are sons of Late Bisu Hansda, residents of Village Juspur, P.S.
Bindapathar, Dist.- Jamtara.
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Respondent
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
--------
For the Appellants : Mr. Durga C. Mishra, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Kaushal Kishor Mishra, Adv.
--------
JUDGMENT
th
Dated: 09 April, 2026
1. Heard Mr. Durga C. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants
and Mr. Jitendra Pandey, Learned APP assisted by Mr. Kaushal
Kishor Mishra, learned counsel for the informant.
2. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of
conviction and sentence dated 10.02.2005 passed in Sessions Case
No. 390 of 1992 / 52 of 2002 by the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions
Judge (F.T.C.), Jamtara whereby and whereunder both the
appellants alongwith other co-accused persons have been convicted
under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 324, 325, 307/34 & 308/34
of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year each for the
offences under Sections 147, 149 & 323 of the IPC, R.I. for two
years each for the offences under Section 148 & 324 of the IPC,
R.I. for one month each for the offence under Section 341 of the
IPC, R.I. for three years each for the offences under Section 325
I.P.C. and R.I. for five years each for the offence under Sections
307 & 308 read with Section 34 of the IPC. All the sentences were
directed to run concurrently.
Factual Matrix
3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on
21.07.1991 at about 5:00 PM the informant alongwith Sunil
Murmu, Nutan Muni and Kolo Muni Murmu had gone to his paddy
2026:JHHC:10239
field at Talabahiyar. In the meantime, the appellants including co-
accused persons surrounded the informant party and started
assaulted them by lathi, due to which the informant party sustained
injuries. The accused persons fled away after the occurrence. All
the injured persons went their home and thereafter they proceeded
to Nala Hospital on bullock-cart, they were medically treated.
4. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, Nala (Bindapathar)
P.S. Case No. 66 of 1991 for the offence under Section 147, 148,
341 & 308/34 of IPC was registered.
5. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was
submitted against the appellants including co-accused persons for
the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 325, 307
& 308 of IPC and after taking cognizance, the case was committed
to the court of Sessions, where Sessions Case No.390 of 1992 / 52
of 2002 was registered. The appellants have denied the charges
levelled against them and claimed to be tried.
6. It appears that altogether eight witnesses have been examined
by the prosecution: -
P.W.-1 Nutan Mani Soren
P.W.-2 Sunil Murmu
P.W.-3 Katulal Murmu
P.W.-4 Turka Murmu
P.W.-5 Kolo Muni Murmu
P.W.-6 Jurga Murmu
P.W.-7 Dr. Shiv Shankar Harijan
P.W.-8 Md. Hussain Ali
7. On the other hand, two witnesses have been examined on
behalf of defence and two documentary evidences have also
been adduced on behalf of the defence, i.e., (i) Exhibit-A: F.I.R.
in Sessions Case No. 53 of 2002 and (ii) Exhibit-B: Fardbeyan
in Sessions Case No. 53 of 2002.
Submissions on behalf of the appellants
8. Learned counsel for the appellants without touching the merits
of this judgment has submitted that both the appellants have been
2026:JHHC:10239
convicted and sentenced and directed to undergo maximum
sentence of five years for the offences under Sections 307 and 308
read with Section 34 of the IPC. There was case and counter case
between the parties. In the counter case alleged by the appellant
that the informant party of this case were also held guilty for the
offence under section 323 of the IPC and in their appeal, they have
been granted benefit of Section 3/4 of the Probation of Offenders
Act. Therefore, the appellants also deserve the same. Moreover, the
alleged occurrence is of the year 1991 and therefore, appellants
have maintained peace and have settled in their life. Hence, the
appellants may be extended benefit of Section 4 of probation of
offenders Act.
Submissions on behalf of the State
9. On the other hand, learned APP assisted by learned counsel for
the informant has defended the judgment of learned trial Court on
merits but so far as extension of benefit of Probation of Offenders
Act is concerned, they have no objection.
Analysis, discussions and reasons: -
10. It appears that the learned Trial Court has not recorded any
reason for not extending the benefit of Section 3/4 of the Probation
of Offenders Act to the appellants. There was free fight between
the parties and both the parties had sustained injuries. It was the
first offence of the appellants, therefore, the appellants deserve the
benefit of Probation of Offenders Act.
11. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the
conviction of the appellants is hereby upheld. Therefore, instead of
undergoing substantive sentence awarded to the appellants, they
shall appear before the learned trial court within two months from
the date of this judgment and the learned trial court shall release
the appellants under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act,
1958 upon their furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five
Thousand Only) each with two sureties, subject to condition that
the appellants shall maintain peace and good behavior for one year.
2026:JHHC:10239
In case of violation of terms and conditions of bond, the appellants
shall be called upon to receive the sentence awarded to them.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification
in sentence as stated above.
12. It is further clarified that if some delay occurs in furnishing the
bond, the same may be extended by the learned trial court being
satisfied with the reasons for delay in furnishing the bond.
13. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly.
14. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record be
sent back immediately to the court concerned for information and
needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
09.04.2026
Rahul
Uploaded on 16/04/2026
