Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 1296 of 2007 [Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 07.08.2007, passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.), Dumka, in Sessions Case No. 139 of 2006] 1. Bhudeo Raut, Son of Late Dhagu Rout. 2. Champa Devi, Wife of Bhudeo Rout. Resident of Village – Tatloi, P.S. – Tongra, District – Dumka. … … Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ….. For the Appellants : Ms. Chandana Kumari, Advocate Mr. Kumar Swapnil, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P. ….. JUDGMENT Dated / 03.01.2025 By Court: Heard Ms. Chandana Kumari, learned counsel for the appellants assisted by learned counsel Mr. Kumar Swapnil and Mr. Jitendra Pandey, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. 2. Above named appellants have preferred this criminal appeal challenging their conviction and sentence dated 07.08.2007 passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.), Dumka in Sessions Case No. 139 of 2006, whereby and whereunder, both the appellants have been held guilty for the offence under Sections 324 of the I.P.C. and sentenced appellant – Budheo Rout to undergo R.I. for two years while, appellant – Champa Devi was released upon furnishing bond of Rs. 2,000/- with two sureties for making peace and be of good behavior for one year under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal as depicted in the written information dated 12.07.2005 of Anath Rout (P.W.-2) is that at about 8:00 PM on 11.07.2005, he along with his wife Ratoni Devi (P.W.-1) was taking dinner. Meanwhile, in the north of his house in the maize field, his cousin Bhudeo Rout was going, then he asked why he is moving in the maize field and destroying the maize. The appellants started abusing him and aked his wife Champa Devi to bring Sabal, on which, his wife brought a Sabal and both the appellants entered into the house of the informant and started throwing stones and also assaulted him with Sabal on his head and face. Thereafter, the wife of the informant tried to stop the accused from beating her husband, then both the appellants assaulted her also. She also sustained bleeding injury on her forehead. The informant out of injury fell down and his wife somehow took the informant inside the house and tried to lock the door, on which, the appellants damaged the gate of their house and again they have beaten them. Villagers came there and then the appellants fled away. It was evening, so they could not visit the Hospital and the police station and on 22.07.2005, they informed the police. 4. On the basis of above information, FIR being Raneshwar (T) P.S. Case No. 41 of 2005 was registered against the accused for the offence under Sections 341, 452, 323, 307, 504/34 of the I.P.C. 5. After completion of investigation, the I.O. of the case has submitted charge sheet against the accused persons in the aforesaid sections. Cognizance of the offence was taken and subsequently, the case was committed to the court of Sessions. Charges have been framed for the offences under Sections 323, 341 and 307 of the I.P.C., to which they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against accused persons, altogether seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution. 7. Apart from oral evidence of ocular witnesses, following documentary evidences were also adduced. Exhibit-1 Series : Signature of Anath Rout (informant) and endorsement on written report. Exhibit-2 Series : Injury Reports. Page 4 of 7 Exhibit-3 : Formal FIR 8. After closure of evidence from the prosecution side, the statements of the appellants under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein the appellants pleaded to be innocent and claimed to be tried. 9. However, on behalf of defence, only one witness has been examined as D.W.-1, Paresh Murmu, but no documentary evidence was adduced. 10. The learned trial court, after evaluating the evidence available on record, found the appellants guilty for the offence under Section 324 of the I.P.C. and sentenced as stated above. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants without touching the merits of the judgment has confined herself towards non-extension of benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act to the appellant – Bhudeo Raut, while other co-accused Champa Devei has been extended the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. It is further submitted that both husband and wife were convicted in this case for the offence under Section 324 of the I.P.C. but the wife namely, Champa Devi was released upon furnishing bond of Rs. 2,000/- with two sureties for making peace and be of good behaviour for one year under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The case of appellant-Bhudeo Raut stands on similar footing to that of appellant – Champa Devi. No previous conviction has been credited in his favour, rather it was his first offence and admittedly the dispute arose between the parties on trivial matter regarding destruction of maize crop. The learned trial court has not recorded any special reasons for not extending the same benefit to the appellant – Bhudeo Raut as was granted to his wife – Champa Devi. The appellant – Bhudeo Raut deserves the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act on the basis of above argument. 12. On the other hand, learned APP appearing for the State has not raised any serious objection, rather defended the impugned judgment on merits. 13. I have gone through the record of the case, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side. 14. It appears that although charges were framed for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and allied offences, but after conclusion of trial, learned trial court has held the appellants guilty for the offence under Section 324 of the I.P.C. as simple injury caused to the injured by pelting stones. It is also admitted fact that appellant-Bhudeo Raut has no previous criminal antecedent and has never convicted for any offence, it was his first offence. The trial court has extended the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offender Act to co-accused Champa Devi, but has committed discrimination to the appellant – Bhudeo Raut without any reasonable cause for the same set of evidence. 15. Considering the overall factual background, genesis, manner of occurrence, the nature of injury sustained by the informant and the offence committed by the appellant – Bhudeo Rout, his age, character and antecedent, it is expedient in the ends of justice to extend the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment immediately as inflicted by the learned trial court. 16. In this view of the matter, appellant – Bhudeo Rout is directed to appear before the concerned trial court within three months from the date of this judgment and the learned trial court is also directed to release the appellant– Bhudeo Rout 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 to the satisfaction of concerned Trial Court with condition to maintain peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year from the date of furnishing the bond. 17. The learned trial court may call for a report from the concerned District Probation Officer, if so desired. 18. In case of violation of the terms and conditions of the bond, the appellant shall be called upon by the concerned trial court to appear and receive the substantive sentence of imprisonment already awarded to him by the learned trial court. 19. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence to the extent mentioned above. 20. Pending I.A., if any, stand disposed of. 21. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated : 03.01.2025 Sunil /N.A.F.R.