Cr.A(SJ) No.1654 of 2006 Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1654 of 2006 Umesh Kumar Singh, Son of Jaypati Singh, Resident of Charka, P.S. Nokha, District Rohtas (Bihar). … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mrs. Khalida Haya Rashmi, Adv. Mr. Allan Andrew, Adv. For the State : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, A.P.P. ------ P R E S E N T Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT Dated- 13.01.2025 By Court:- Heard Mrs. Khalida Haya Rashmi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. Gautam Rakesh, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State. 2. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.11.2006 and 24.11.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Seraikella, District Seraikella Kharsawan in Sessions Trial Case No.179 of 2003 arising out of G.R. Case No.686 of 2003 whereby and whereunder the Cr.A(SJ) No.1654 of 2006 Page | 2 appellant has been held guilty for the offences under Sections 325 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for five years for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the I.P.C. with fine of Rs.2,000/- and R.I. for one year for the offence punishable under Section 504 of the I.P.C. with default stipulation. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that informant, Ranjit Kumar Pandey, has stated in his written report that his mother, Sabitri Pandey, is a teacher at the basic school in Sini and informant and his mother reside at the school quarters. On 23.09.2003 at about 07:00 AM, the headmaster of the school, Jaypati Singh, along with his son Umesh Kumar Singh (the petitioner) armed with lathi and danda came at the residence of the informant and started to dragging his mother by abusing her in filthy language. Upon hearing the commotion, the informant and his brother Murari Kumar Pandey intervened and questioned the accused persons about their actions. Informant has further alleged that in response, Jaypati Singh instructed his son Umesh Cr.A(SJ) No.1654 of 2006 Page | 3 Kumar Singh to assault both the informant and his brother. Thereafter, Umesh Kumar Singh attacked Ranjit Kumar Pandey with a lathi causing him injuries on his head and back and Jaypati Singh assaulted Sabitri Pandey with a lathi as a result of which the head of Sabitri was fractured and the blood was oozing out from the wounds. Hearing the commotion, local villagers gathered at the scene, which prompted the accused to flee away. On the basis of above written information, the case was instituted as Seraikella P.S. Case No.81 of 2003 for the offences under Sections 448/341/323/307/504 of the I.P.C. 4. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant for the offences under Sections 341/323/504 of the I.P.C. and accordingly, cognizance was taken and subsequently, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where S.T. Case No.179 of 2003 was registered. Charges were framed under Sections 341/325/307 and 504 of the I.P.C. against the appellant which were read over and explained to him for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Cr.A(SJ) No.1654 of 2006 Page | 4 5. In the course of trial, altogether eight witnesses were examined and several documentary evidences were also adduced by the prosecution. 6. After conclusion of trial, the appellant was held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 325 and 504 of the I.P.C. and sentenced as stated above which has been assailed in this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant without touching the merits of the judgment has confined herself towards the point of non-extending the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act of 1958’) to the appellant to which he deserves. The informant- cum-injured Ranjit Kumar Pandey has sustained one injury which is simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance and the injury of another injured, informant's mother, in supplementary medical report, has been opined to be grievous in nature. It is further submitted that it was appellant's first offence and the appellant has neither criminal background nor has been ever convicted for any offence and his plea in this regard without recording any special reasons, Cr.A(SJ) No.1654 of 2006 Page | 5 has not been considered by the learned trial court while awarding sentence. The incident has happened in the year 2003 and now more than two decades have been lapsed and maximum sentence awarded by learned trial court is five years. Hence, appellant deserve benefit of Section 4 of the Act of 1958 instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment as granted by the learned trial court and this appeal may be allowed. 8. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has not raised any serious objection against the arguments of the appellant rather he has defended the impugned judgment and order on merits. 9. 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. 10. It appears from the impugned judgment and order that at the time of hearing on the point of sentence, learned trial court has categorically mentioned that there is no any previous criminal antecedent against the appellant and Cr.A(SJ) No.1654 of 2006 Page | 6 incident took place in a sudden manner. It appears that the learned trial court has exonerated the appellant from the charge under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced for offence under Sections 325 and 504 of the I.P.C. It is also a fact that the appellant has never been previously convicted for any other offence. It was appellant's first offence and the incident was of the year 2003 and more than two decades have been passed since the date of commission of offence. It is also pleaded that the appellant in the aforesaid period has also maintained peace and harmony and has never been involved in any other criminal activities. The learned trial court without recording any special reasons has declined to extend the benefit of Section 4 of the Act of 1958 to the appellant. 11. Considering the overall factual background, genesis, manner of occurrence and the nature of injury sustained by the injured persons and the offence committed by the appellant, his age, character and antecedent, it appears expedient in the ends of justice to extend the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 instead of Cr.A(SJ) No.1654 of 2006 Page | 7 awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment immediately as inflicted by the learned trial court. In this view of the matter, appellant 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 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. The learned trial court may also call for a report from the concerned District Probation Officer, if so desired and release the appellant on furnishing the aforesaid bond. 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. 12. In view of above discussions and observations, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence Cr.A(SJ) No.1654 of 2006 Page | 8 to the extent as stated above. 13. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to the concerned trial court for information and needful. 14. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Sachin