[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Jharusikdar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 April, 2026
2026:JHHC:10454
IN THE HIGH COURT OFJHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1184 of 2005
---------
1. JharuSikdar, Son of Late PrasadiSikdar
2. Bailu Rout
3. Gangu Rout
4. Jyotish Rout
Appellant Nos.2-4 are son of late Panchu Rout, and all are resident of
village-Ghat Kurba, P.S.-Pathergama, Dist. Godda
......Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Makuntala Devi, W/o-Prakash Rai, R/o-Village-Ram Suvdriya, P.S.-
Palhargama, Dist.-Godda .... Respondents
---------
For the Appellants : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P.
-----------
PRESENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
Dated:09th April, 2026
1. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, learned counsel for the appellants and
learned Spl.P.P.
2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 20th August, 2005 passed by the
learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Case
Nos.141/1997, 133/1999 arising out of Pathargama P.S. Case No.100 of
1996, corresponding to G.R. No.634 of 1996, whereby and whereunder
the appellants have been held guilty for the offence under section 325 of
Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months.
Factual Matrix:-
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.1184 of 2005
2026:JHHC:10454
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 23rd August, 1996 at
about 8:00pm, all the above appellants while under drunken state, were
abusing in filthy language by saying that whoever will come in their
way to create obstacle in realization of rangadari, they will ruin their
life. Acting upon which, the husband of the informant, namely, Jai
Prakash Rai came forward and advised them to go their home as they
are drunk but they got furious and chased the husband of the informant
to assault but he managed to escape from the clutch of the accused
persons. On the next day i.e. on 24.08.1996 at about 8:00 am, while the
husband of the informant was taking a bath in front of his house, all the
accused persons armed with deadly weapons came there and caught
hold of him and started indiscriminately assaulting him with iron rod
and lathi and caused injuries to him. Upon hearing hulla, all the locals
arrived there and saved the husband of the informant from the assault of
the accused persons.
4. On the basis of aforesaid information, Pathargama P.S. Case No.100 of
1996 was instituted for the offences under sections 341, 323, 325 and
307/34 of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was
submitted against the appellants and after taking cognizance, the case
was committed to the court of Sessions where Sessions Case
No.Nos.141/1997, 133/1999was registered. The appellants have denied
the charges leveled against them and claimed to be tried. After
conclusion of the trial, the impugned judgment and order of conviction
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.1184 of 2005
2026:JHHC:10454
and sentence of the appellants was passed, which has been assailed in
this appeal.
5. Prosecution has examined altogether 7 witnesses in this case and one
documentary evidences i.e. injury report of injured, Jay Prakash Rai has
also been adduced.
6. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced
by the defence. The case of defence is denial from occurrence and false
implication due to village politics.
Submission on behalf of appellants:-
7. Learned counsel for the appellants without touching the merits of the
judgment has confined himself to the point of non-extension the benefit
of section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the appellants to
which they deserve. It is further submitted that it was the first offence of
the appellants and there was specific plea before the concerned trial
court that the appellants may be given the benefit of section 4 of
Probation of Offenders Act for the offence under section 325 of IPC,
which has been proved against them but the learned trial court without
recording any special reasons has awarded substantive sentence of
imprisonment, which is not justified under law. The appellants deserve
the benefit of section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Submission on behalf of the State:-
8. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the
State has defended the judgment of conviction and sentence of the
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.1184 of 2005
2026:JHHC:10454
appellants on merits but so far extending the benefit of Probation of
Offenders Act is concerned, it is fairly admitted that it was the first
offence of the appellants, hence, they deserve the benefit of Probation of
Offenders Act.
Analysis, Reasons and Decision:-
9. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the conviction of the
appellants is hereby upheld but so far the sentence awarded by the trial
court to the above named accused persons/appellants is concerned, is
modified and the trial court is directed to release the appellants
extending the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958
upon furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) each with
one sureties with condition to maintain peace and good behavior for one
year from the date of furnishing the bond.
10.In case of violation of terms and conditions of the bond, the appellants
shall be called upon to receive the sentence of imprisonment already
awarded to them by the learned trial court. The appellants are also
directed to appear before the concerned trial court within two months
from the date of this judgment and furnish the required bond, failing
which, the appellants shall be called upon by learned trial court to
furnish the said bond.
11.In case of violation of terms and conditions of bond, the appellant shall
be called upon to receive the sentence of imprisonment awarded to
them.
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.1184 of 2005
2026:JHHC:10454
12.In view of above discussion and reasons, this appeal is dismissed on
merits with modification of sentence as stated above
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 concerned trial court for compliance.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Pappu/-
09/04/2026
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.1184 of 2005
