Page | 1 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. ------ P R E S E N T 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 | 2 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 | 3 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 | 4 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 | 5 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 | 6 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/-