[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Sahdeo Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 30 January, 2026
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 93 of 2025
With
I.A. No. 2254 of 2025
----------
1. Sahdeo Yadav
2. Sikandar Yadav ..... Appellants
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Sunil Yadav ..... Respondents
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
----------
For the Appellant : Mrs. Pinki Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Sushma Aind, A.P.P.
For the Resp.No.2 : Mr. Diwakar Jha, Advocate
----------
10/30.01.2026 Heard Mrs. Pinki Kumari, learned
counsel for the appellant and Ms. Sushma Aind, learned
A.P.P. and Mr. Diwakar Jha, learned counsel for the
Informant.
2. This Criminal Appeal has been filed on
behalf of the Appellants challenging the judgment of
conviction dated 06.12.2024 and sentence dated
10.12.2024, passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Koderma in Sessions Trial No. 34 of 2022 and Sessions
Trial No.35 of 2022, by which the Appellants, namely
Sahdeo Yadav and Sikandar Yadav have been convicted
for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 307, 504 and
506/34 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven
(07) years and to pay the fine of Rs.20,000/-, R.I. for One
(01) year and to pay the fine of 1,000/-, R.I. for One (01)
year and to pay the fine of Rs.1,000/-, R.I. for One (01)
year and to pay the fine of Rs.1,000/- and R.I. for One (01)
month and to pay the fine of Rs.100/- for the offence
under Sections 307/34, 323/34, 504/34, 506/34 and
341/34 of I.P.C. respectively.
3. As per F.I.R., it is alleged that during a
meeting on 23.02.2021, at about 6.30 P.M., for
construction of Devi Mandap in the Village, when
contribution was demanded from the appellants,
Appellant No.1, namely Sahdeo Yadav became furious and
started to abuse in filthy language regarding such
construction and when father of the Informant protested,
then Sikandar Yadav, i.e. Appellant No.2 knocked him
down and Sahdeo Yadav, i.e. Appellant No.1 assaulted
him by means of Tangi upon the head of father of the
Informant with intention to kill as a result of which his
forehead was fractured and blood started oozing out. It is
further alleged that on protest of the villagers the
appellants fled away and family members Mahendra
Yadav, Manju Devi, Shiv Shankar Yadav, Ram Sharan
Yadav had thrown stones at the villagers from the roof in
a pre-planned manner. The father of the Informant was
being treated in the RIMS and when Informant came to
Police Station to give information, accused Mahendra
Yadav and 4-5 known persons surrounded him and at the
point of revolver threatened him of dire consequences.
4. The instant Interlocutory Application has
been filed on behalf of the appellants under Section
430 (1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for
suspension of their sentence and grant of bail during
pendency of the Criminal Appeal.
5. During the course of argument, learned
counsel for the appellants seeks permission not to press
the bail for the Appellant No. 1, namely Sahdeo Yadav in
I.A. No. 2254 of 2025.
6. No objection has been raised by both
learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel
for the Respondent No.2.
7. Under the circumstances, part of this I.A.
No. 2254 of 2025 is rejected as not pressed as bail of the
Appellant No.1, namely Sahdeo Yadav is not pressed for.
8. So far as the other appellant, i.e.
Appellant No. 2, namely Sikandar Yadav is concerned,
learned counsel for the Appellant No.2 has submitted that
the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence
passed by the learned Trial Court is illegal, arbitrary and
not sustainable in law. It is submitted that the allegations
against the appellant No. 2 are false and concocted. It is
submitted that at best the allegation against Appellant
No.2, namely Sikandar Yadav, is for thrashing the injured
Banwari Yadav on the ground. It is submitted that the
Appellant No. 2, namely Sikandar Yadav, has remained in
custody for around one year and hence, prayer for bail
made on behalf of Appellant No.2, namely Sikandar Yadav
may be allowed.
9. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has
opposed the prayer for bail.
10. Learned counsel for the Informant has
opposed the prayer for bail made on behalf of the
appellant No.2, Sikandar Yadav. It is submitted that there
is direct allegation against the Appellant No.2, mainly
Appellant No.2, for assaulting and thrashing the injured
Banwari Yadav. It is submitted that injured Banwari
Yadav was examined as P.W.5 and he has fully supported
the prosecution case. It is submitted that the Doctor, who
had been examined as P.W.1, and proved the injury
report, had found grievous injury on the head of the
injured Banwari Yadav, who was referred to RIMS, Ranchi
for treatment by the Sadar Hospital, Koderma. It is
submitted that other eye-witnesses examined as P.W.1,
P.W.2 and P.W.3, namely Surendra Yadav, Ranjeet Prasad
Yadav and Manoj Yadav respectively have also supported
the prosecution case. It is submitted that the P.W.8,
namely Krishna Ram, who is the Investigating Officer of
this case, has also corroborated and supported the
prosecution case and hence, the prayer for bail made on
behalf of the Appellant No.2, namely Sikandar Yadav may
be rejected.
11. Perused the Trial Court Records and
considered the submission of both the sides.
12. From perusal of the F.I.R., it would appear
that Sikander Yadav, i.e. Appellant No.2 has thrashed the
injured Banwari Yadav on the ground and other co-
convict is said to have assaulted him by Tangi on his head
due to which the injured sustained head injury.
13. It transpires from the evidence of prosecution
witnesses that a meeting was convened in the village for
performing 'Yagya' and for collection of Chanda and in the
meantime an altercation took place and the Appellant
No.2, namely Sikandar Yadav had thrashed the injured
Banwari Yadav on the ground, whereas the other co-
convict is alleged to have assaulted him on the head by
Tangi due to which he sustained head injury.
14. Under the circumstances and in view of
the discussions made above, the Appellant No.2, namely
Sikandar Yadav, is directed to be released on bail, on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen
thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each in
connection with Sessions Trial No. 34 of 2022 and
Sessions Trial No. 35 of 2022, to the satisfaction of
learned Sessions Judge, Koderma.
15. Thus, this I.A. No. 2254 of 2025 is allowed
in part and stands disposed of.
16. Learned counsel for the Informant has
submitted that till date nothing has been paid towards
victim compensation.
17. It transpires that the learned Trial Court
has not directed for payment of any compensation under
the provisions of victim compensation scheme to the
Informant.
18. Accordingly, seeing the nature of injury,
this Court directs the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma
and the Superintendent of Police, Koderma to pay the
compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) to the
Informant, towards victim compensation scheme, for the
present at this stage.
19. Let a copy of this order be sent to the
Principal District & Sessions Judge, Koderma, Deputy
Commissioner, Koderma, Superintendent of Police,
Koderma and the Secretary, D.L.S.A., Koderma by Fax.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
s.m.
Dated 30.01.2026
