-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 590 of 2003 …. Muni Lal Kewat son of Late Babulal Kewat, Both are resident of Kewatpara, Dudhani, P.S. –Dumka (T), District- Dumka ..… Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Respondent ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the appellant : Mrs. Juhi Kumari, Amicus Curiae For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P. P. ….. JUDGMENT 14. Pronounced on 15/01/2025 This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27.03.2003 passed by Sri Anirudh Prasad Sharma, then learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in connection with S. T. No. 182 of 1993 arising out of Dumka Town P. S. Case No. 101 of 1992 corresponding to G. R. No. 632 of 1992 whereby the appellant-Muni Lal Kewat has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and had been sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of seven (7) years. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that one Jhaban Keot, informant of this case has lodged a written report before officer- in-charge, Dumka Town P.S. stating therein that on 29.06.1992 at about 8.30 P.M. accused Sitaram Keot and Munilal Keot came to informant and asked him to pour fish zira in the pond. The informant showed his inability for want of money. Further the informant asked the accused Sitaram Keot and Munilal Keot to -2- arrange the money for the same and thereupon accused Sitaram Keot and Munilal Keot give pressure, in any condition he has to pour the Zira of Fish. On refusal the accused Sitaram Keot instigated to assault Munilal Keot then he run towards his house, and accused Sitaram followed to his house alongwith accused Munilal Kewat and they assaulted Parmeshwari Keot i.e. the wife of informant with Sawal on her head, due to which she sustained serious injuries. When the informant tried to save his wife, then the accused Munilal had also assaulted him with Sawal, due to which he sustained injuries on left shoulder and left knee. On hulla several persons came and saved them from excess assault. It is also alleged that the accused Hari Tiwari was also instigating the accused Sitaram Keot and Munilal Keot to assault him. 3. Heard learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant and leaned counsel for the State. 4. Learned Amicus Curiae appears for the appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that learned Court below has convicted the appellant on mere surmises and conjecture. It is submitted that the learned Court below has failed to scrutinize the evidence of the P.Ws. which are contrary to each another. It is submitted that the learned Court below failed to consier that the FIR shows that occurrence took place inside the house whereas P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 have stated that the occurrence took place outside the house whereas P.W.-4 i.e. the Informant stated nothing regarding place of occurrence during his evidence which is a big contradiction. It is submitted that P.W.-2 during her evidence stated that people came on hulla and they got them rescued P.W.-3 also stated about hulla outside the house. But -3- no independent witnesses were examined except Balkrishna Kewat, who had been declared Hostile though his house is just nearby the house of the informant. It is submitted that FIR named witness Dilip has also not been examined. Thus, there is nothing against the appellant to convict him under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that learned Court below failed to consider that P.W. -4 i.e. the informant in Para-11 of his evidence has deposed that Munilal Kewat had nothing to do with the affair of Tank and he was no way connected with Tank or its profit or loss or business. Therefore, he had no motive or intension to commit such offence against the informant. Moreover Para-7 of his evidence shows that he is nephew of informant. It is submitted that as per Para-6 of the evidence of P.W.-3, it is clear that she had not seen the occurrence and she was not an eye witness as she came out of the house on hulla and saw her mother lying on earth. It is submitted that the learned Court below has failed to scrutinize the evidence of P.W.-4 i.e. the Informant who had stated that on the date of occurrence he came to his house at 8.00 PM after buying the fish from West Bengal then how could he alleged that the appellant came to him at 7.00 PM and started altercation. It is submitted that the learned Court below ought to have appreciate that non-examination of Investigating Officer is fatal because place of occurrence could not be proved. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer has not been examined by the prosecution, who is a vital witness of the prosecution and even Sabal (i.e. the weapon) had not been recovered by the police after assault and as such, the prosecution has failed to produce the weapon. It is submitted that P.W. -5 is the Doctor, who had found simple injury on the person of the informant, although he had found grievous injury on the person of the injured Parmeshwari -4- Devi. However, X-ray plates and report of X-ray have not been brought on record by the prosecution to prove the factum of grievous injury and failed to prove that injury is dangerous to life. It is submitted that both the informant and the accused are the uncle and Nephew in relation and belong to the same family. It is submitted that even the witnesses have stated that both the sides were taking wine and they were in drunken condition at the time of occurrence. It is submitted that the appellant is aged around 60 years and as such, lenient view may be taken and this Criminal Appeal may be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the impugned judgment and sentence passed by the learned Court below are fit and proper and no inference is required from this Court. It is submitted that no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below by convicting the appellant under Section 307 of I.P.C. It is submitted that all the prosecution witnesses i.e. P.W.-1, Parmeshwri Devi, PW.-2, Baby Devi, PW-3, Sawitri Devi and PW.-4, Jhaban Keot have supported the prosecution case. It is submitted that P.W.-5 is the Doctor, who has proved the injury report of the injured- Parmeshwari Devi, which is marked as Ext.-2 and found grievous injury on her person. It is submitted that PW.-5, Dr. Anand Mohan Soren had also examined the informant-Jhaban Keot and has also found simple injury on his person vide injury report marked as Ext.-2/1. Thus prosecution has proved the injury reports of the injured persons. It is submitted that P.W.-4, Jhaban Keot is the Informant, who has fully supported the prosecution case and stated that the accused persons had assaulted him. It is submitted that PW-2 and PW-3 namely Baby Devi and Sawtri Devi have stated that her father as well as her mother were assaulted and due to which they became injured. It is submitted -5- that although Investigating Officer has not been examined, but non-examination of the I.O is not fatal in this case and as such, judgment of conviction and sentence may be upheld and this Criminal Appeal may be dismissed. 6. Perused the Lower Court Records and considered the submissions of both the sides. 7. It transpires that FIR was lodged by the Informant – Jhaban Keot on 29.06.1992 for the offences under Sections 452/341/323/308/114/34 of the Indian Penal Code against three persons namely Sita Ram Keot, Munni Lal Keot (i.e. the appellant) and Hari Tiwari, who had died on 06.05.2000 during pendency of the trial before the learned Court below. 8. On the basis of fardbeyan of Jhaban Keot i.e. the informant, the police had instituted Dumka (T) P. S. Case No. 101 of 1992 on 29.06.1992 for the offences under Sections 452/341/323/308/114/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons. 9. The police, after completing investigation, had submitted charge sheet for the offences under Sections 452/341/323/308/ 114/34 of the Indian Penal Code against three persons namely Sita Ram Keot, Munni Lal Keot i.e. the appellant and Hari Tiwari on 21.09.1992 and learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka had taken cognizance on 30.09.1992 against the appellant and two others under Section 452/341/323/308/114/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. After supplying the police paper, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and charges were framed against the appellant- Muni Lal Kewat and one Sita Ram Kewat framed on 16.05.1996 under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code whereas charges were framed against Hari Tiwari (deceased) under -6- Sections 109 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 11. It transpires that during trial the prosecution got examined seven (7) witnesses, who are as follows: (i) PW-1 is Parmeshwari Devi (i.e. the wife of the informant), (ii) P.W.-2 is Baby Devi, (iii) P.W.-3 is Sawtri Devi, (iv) P.W.-4 is Jhaban Keot (i.e. the Informant himself), (v) P.W.-5 is Dr. Anand Mohan Soren, (vi) P.W.-6 is Bal Krishna Keot, (vii) P.W.-7 is Someshwar Mahto, 12. The prosecution got exhibited following documents, which are as follows:- (i) Ext.-1 is Signature of Jhhaban Keot on written application, (ii) Ext.-2 is Injury report of Parmeshwari Devi, (iii) Ext.-2/1 is Injury report of Jhaban Keot and (iv) Ext.-3 is the Formal FIR. 13. It transpires that the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. on 06.05.2000 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka and the appellant has denied the circumstances put forth before him. 14. During the pendency of this case, Hari Tiwari had died and his name has been expunged vide order dated 06.05.2000 by the learned Court below and one Sita Ram Kewat has died on 25.09.2010 and his name has been expunged by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navneet Kumar) of this Court vide order dated 27.10.2021. 15. The Defence, in support of his case, neither examined any witnesses nor any document has been marked as the Exhibit on -7- behalf of the appellant. 16. Thereafter the learned Court below has convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R. I. for a period of seven (7) years for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence appreciation of evidence of prosecution witnesses is necessary. 17. P.W.-5, Dr. Anand Mohan Soren is Doctor, who has examined the injured Parmeshwari Devi and found the following injuries on her person as follows:- (i) Lacerated wound 1” x 1/4” scalp deep over left parietal region of the scalp. (ii) Complain of pain all over the body. On 30-6-92 at 9.00 A.M. she was admitted for complain of pain all over the body and treatment was given on 03.07.1992 neurological deficient was detected over right side of limbs and treatment given. On 06.07.1992, a Medical Board was constituted by the Superintendent, Sadar Hospital, Dumka consisting of Dr. A.M. Sorem, M.S. DER. R.F. Verma, M.D. and Dr. K.D. Sinha, M.S. (Ortho), Medical Board confirmed right side hemipuretis. X-ray of skull report shows N.D.A. vide X PN 63 dated 03.07.1992. Nature of injury was grievous. The aforesaid injuries was caused by hard blunt substance such as Sawal. The aforesaid injuries is written by him and bears his signature i.e. Ext.2. On the same day he also examined Jhaban Keot i.e. the informant and found the following injuries: - (1) Diffuse swelling over left shoulder with bruise" over lyring the swelling. (ii) Abrasion "1/2"x “1/4” over lateral as feet of left knee. -8- (iii) Complain of pain all over the body. All injuries caused by hard and blunt substance. This injury report is written by him and bears his signature i.e. Ext.2/1. He also stated that the injury on Parmeshwari Devi W/O informant was examined by a Medical Board and the Medical Board after examining her injuries had found that the injuries on the Parmeshwari Devi was grievous in nature. 18. During cross-examination, he stated that Medical Board for examining Parmeshwari Devi was constituted on his request. There is no separate injury report with regard to examination of injured Parmeshwari Devi by the Board. He also admitted and stated that X-ray plate of Parmeshwari Devi or the Neurological Report or the date of her medical examination noted by the Board are not on the record. He also stated that injury was found on the head of Parmeshwari Devi was possible if her body had dashed against hard surface. 19. Thus, from perusal of the evidence of P.W.-5, Dr. Anand Mohan Soren, it is evident that injured Parmeshwari Devi has sustained injury on her head, which is vital part of the body. Thus, P.W.-5, Dr. Anand Mohan Soren has proved the injury of the injured and on the person i.e. the informant- Jhaban Keot. 20. However, he himself admitted that X-ray plate and neurological report of the injured Parmeshwari Devi were not produced by him during trial while he was examined as P.W.-5. Even this injury report was prepared on 28.07.1992 by him instead of 30.06.1992. No paper regarding constitution of Medical Report has also been brought on record by the prosecution. Therefore it is evident that grievous injury has not been proved -9- upon Parmeshwari Devi (i.e. P.W.-1) on account of non-production of X-ray plate and neurological report of the injured Parmeshwari Kewatian. 21. P.W.-1 is Parmeshwari Kewatian i.e. the injured and she stated during her evidence that her family is doing fish business and on the date of occurrence while she was in her house at around 8.00 pm then Muni Lal Kewat i.e. the appellant and Sitaram Keot (deceased) entered into her house and asked him for putting fish Zira in the pokra (i.e. Tank), which was said to be joint, then her husband told them that he had not given fish zira in pond, but he will give the same tomorrow in the pond. Then, Muni Lal Kewat asked her husband to go outside the house and when her husband went outside his house, the appellant Muni Lal Kewat assaulted on his head by iron rod causing injury on her husband due to which her husband became unconscious. Thereafter, Sitaram Keot also assaulted her husband on his shoulder and when she went to save her husband, then Muni Lal Keot assaulted on her head by iron rod due to which, she sustained injuries on her head and blood started oozing from her head and she became unconscious. Thereafter she was treated at Sadar Hospital, Dumka and her husband was also treated and thereafter she was referred to Hospital at Patna. She alleged that Hari Tiwari had also exhorted him to kill them. After recovery, her statement was recorded by the police. 22. During cross-examination, she stated that the accused and her husband and other persons used to do fish business. She has got one son and five daughters and she has no Devar. However, her three daughters are married. She further stated that the occurrence took place at night but she has not raised any alarm. She had seen Muni Lal and Chhabili and at the time of occurrence, she was inside the room and her house consisted of three rooms. She -10- further stated that her husband went outside and the accused persons assaulted her husband on the door and she became unconscious and she is not aware about further act. 23. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.-1, Parmeshwari Kewatian, it is evident that she has supported the prosecution case and stated that she had sustained head injury on her head due to assault made by the appellant Muni Lal Kewat by the Iron rod. Although, P.W.-1, Parmeshwari Kewatian has supported the prosecution case. However, during course of her examination, she has not produced the papers of her treatment at Sadar Hospital, Dumka and also for the Hospital at Patna. It is also not clear that as to when she was discharged from Hospital, although she has claimed that she was in hospital for around one and half months. Thus, the evidence of P.W.-1 appears to be exaggerated one on account of non-production of medical paper of her treatment. 24. P.W. -2 is Baby Devi, who is daughter of the informant – and injured namely Jhaban Keot and Parmeshwari Kewatian and she stated that on the date of occurrence at around 8.00 PM in the night, she alongwith her sister Savitri Devi and her mother and her father were present in the house, then Sitaram Keot came inside her house and enquired from them regarding administering zira fish in the pokra, but her father stated that he had not given fish zira as he has no money, but he will give zira on the next date, then Sitaram Keot ordered Muni Kal Kewat to kill him. Then Muni Lal Kewat assaulted her father and when her mother tried to save her father, then Muni Lal Kewat assaulted her mother by Sabal on her head and due to which, blood started oozing from her head and her mother became unconscious. She further stated that her father was assaulted by Muni Lal Kewat on both knees and shoulders and due -11- to which her father sustained injuries and on alarm raised by them, the people arrived there and saved them, otherwise her father and mother could have been killed. Thereafter, she alongwith her sister took her father and mother went to Hospital, but Doctor advised her to take them to Dumka Hospital. Her mother was treated at Dumka and she was advised to go to Patna and they took her mother to the Patna Hospital and her mother remained at Patna Hospital for around one and half months. 25. During cross-examination, she stated that she has one brother and five sisters and three sisters are living in their matrimonial home and she is married at Deoghar. At the time of occurrence, she was aged around 16 years. She further stated that her father was doing fish business and he used to invest money and her father sells fish zira in the market. However, she admitted that pokra belongs jointly to Muni Lal Kewat and some persons of the market, but she is not aware regarding the income and she has not seen its paper. She asserted that she was at her residence at the time of occurrence in a room and her father, mother and sisters had taken the meal. She further stated that on call of Sitaram, her father went outside the house and then, she heard the alarm that several people had assembled there and they had intervened in the matter. She denied the suggestion that her father returned to night after taking wine. She further stated that she tried to save then she was pushed and due to which, she sustained scratch injury. 26. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W. -2, Baby Devi, it is evident that she has tried to support the prosecution case and she claimed to be the eye witness of the occurrence and she also asserted to have seen the occurrence as an eye witness to the extent that Muni Lal Kewat had assaulted her mother by Sabal on his head and due to which her mother had sustained head injury -12- and blood started oozing out from head of her mother and her mother was hospitalized in a Hospital at Patna for around one and half month. However, the evidence of P.W.-2 is contradictory on the point of her eye witness as she herself admitted that at the time of occurrence, she was in one of the room of her house. Thus, P.W.-2 is not an eye witness and at best she could be present after the occurrence. She has also not produced any paper of treatment of her mother at Dumka Hospital and Patna Hospital. 27. P.W. -3 is Savitri Devi, who is another daughter of the informant and injured Parmeshwari Kewatian. She also stated that occurrence took place at around 8.30 PM in the night while she alongwith her father and sister Baby Devi were in the house and at that time Sitaram Keot came inside her house and told her father to put fish zira in pokhar upon which her father stated that he will arrive tomorrow as he had no money. Then Sitaram started quarrelling with him and he exhorted Muni Lal Kewat to kill him. Then the accused-appellant started assaulting his father and when her mother tried to save him, then Muni Lal Kewat i.e the appellant assaulted her mother by Sabal on her head due to which her mother became unconscious. Even her father had sustained injuries on shoulder and knees due to assault made by Muni Lal Kewat by Sabal. Thereafter, she took her mother to Dumka Hospital for treatment and in course of arriving Hospital, they were sent to Dumka Town P.S. then in Dumka Town PS, her father, her sister and she were enquired and from there her mother was taken to Sadar Hospital at Dumka and her mother remained admitted for twelve days and thereafter her mother was shifted to Patna Hospital from Dumka and her mother was remained in Patna Hospital for around one months and one week and after recovery, -13- she returned to her house. 28. During cross-examination, she also admitted to have five sisters and one brother and she is sister no. 3 and they used to sleep in three rooms out of five rooms. She further stated during cross- examination that she administered water to her mother and firstly her sister Baby Devi arrived from the room and then she arrived. She admitted to have been married in Godda at Jamuni Paharpur. She however, could not say about the Khata Number of the Pond in question. She denied the suggestion that her father had assaulted her mother in drunken condition. She denied the suggestion that all the married sister do not live in their respective matrimonial home and which was objected by the people of Mohalla. 29. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.-3 Savitri Devi, it is evident that she also tried to support the prosecution case, but she does not appear to be the eye witness of the occurrence as she arrived there after arrival of her sister Baby Devi i.e. P.W.-2 and had not seen that Muni Lal Kewat had assaulted her mother Parmeshwari Kewatian in injured condition sustaining injury on her head and due to which her mother was firstly treated at Dumka Hospital and from there she was referred to Patna Hospital. Thus, P.W.-3 Savitri Devi has merely supported the prosecution case. However, she has also not produced any prescription of treatment or medical paper of treatment of injured Parmeshwari Kewatian at Dumka Hospital or at Patna Hospital. This evidence of P.W.- 3 is also exaggerated one. 30. P.W.-4 is Jhaban Keot, who is the informant of this case and stated during his evidence that while he was at his residence on the date of occurrence, then Sitaram and two persons arrived at his home and asked him as to why he had not put fish zira in pokhra and on which he stated that he will not give fish zira. Then -14- Sitaram further exhorted Muni Lal Kewat to assault the informant for not giving fish zira in pond and in the meantime, Hari Tiwari also arrived from behind and firstly Muni Lal Kewat have assaulted him on his shoulder and legs by Sabal and when his wife tried to save him, then she was assaulted by Muni Lal Kewat on her head by Sabal. He further stated that he had taken to his wife to the Hospital after the occurrence and they had gone to police station for registering the case. He further proved his signature on the written application marked as Ext-I. He was also treated at Hospital and the Doctor has given him certain medicine. He further stated that his wife was taken to firstly at Dumka Hospital. 31. During cross-examination, he claimed that the occurrence was seen by his daughter P.W.-3, Savitri Devi and P.W.-2, Baby Devi and one Chanchal Jha. He also admitted that Muni Lal Kewat i.e. the appellant is his nephew and they have joint landed property and one purcha is kept there. However, he had admitted that he has three partners for the pokhara and he and accused Sitaram and one Latu were the partners. He had brought fish zira from his pocket for administering fish in the pond. He had brought fish from Bengal by giving cash amount and he had brought fish in the morning of Monday and returned to his house at around 8.00 PM in the night. He further asserted that Sitaram came to his residence at 7-8 PM in the night and at that time, he was alone and when Sitaram Keot started altercation with him, then Muni Lal Kewat i.e the appellant came there. He has described about the place of occurrence and boundary nearby his houses. However, he admitted that when there was altercation between him and Sitaram then no people of Muhulla had arrived there. He had not informed anyone in the Muhulla, when he was assaulted by the accused persons. However, on that date he had not quarrel with his wife. He also -15- filed paper of the share in pond. 32. Therefore, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.-4, Jhaban Keot, it would appear that he has supported the prosecution case and stated that Muni Lal Keot and Sitaram had assaulted him and his wife and due to which his wife sustained injury and was treated at Dumka Hospital and Patna Hospital for around one month. Thus, P.W.-4, Jhaban Keot has supported the prosecution case. Even his evidence contradicts the FIR as he has stated that he has no money and occurrence took place not putting zira fish in the pond i.e. Tank as per the FIR. However, during evidence, he admitted that he had purchased zira fish from West Bengal market and thus he has not contradicted himself on the point of having no money for purchasing zira fish. 33. P.W.-6 is Bal Krishna Keot, who is doing fish business and has stated during his evidence that while he was residing in his house, then he has seen altercation between the accused-Muni Lal Keot and Jhaban. This witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution. 34. During cross-examination, he has stated that they all are gotia and reside at the same place with their family members. It was dark night around 7.30 PM, when the altercation was taking place at the way and Jaban and Sitaram had taken wine. Thus, P.W.-6, Bal Krishna Keot has not supported the prosecution case. 35. P.W.-7 Someshwar Mahto is a formal witness and has proved the formal FIR in the writing of Officer In-charge Ram Narayan Singh, which was marked as Ext.-3. He is a translator. 36. It also reveals that IO of this case has not been examined and non-examination of IO fatal to this case because defence could not take contradiction on the point of place of occurrence also for -16- examination of injured Jhaban Keot, P.W.-4 at Hospital in Patna. 37. It appears from the Lower Court Records that the appellant was in custody since 01.07.1992 till 23.07.1992 during trial. Thereafter, the appellant was taken into custody by the learned Court below while passing the impugned judgment on 27.03.2003. After his Judgment of conviction and sentence passed in S. T. No. 182 of 1993 by the learned Court below, the appellant has filed the instant Appeal on 25.04.2003 and he was granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amareshwar Sahay as then his Lordship was) of this Court on 30.04.2003 and he had furnished bail bond on 08.05.2003. Thus, the appellant remained in custody for around two months. 38. It transpires that the prosecution has failed to produce medical paper of treatment of injured –Parmeshwari Kewatian, who is said to have sustained grievous injury on her head. There is no corroborative evidence i.e X-ray plate and neurological report of the injured on record of this case. Hence, in absence of X-ray plate and neurological report of the injured–Parmeshwari Kewatian and even grievous injury report on her head is not proved, which may lead to conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. At best, it can be a case of Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 39. Under the circumstances, conviction of the appellant- Muni Lal Kewat is altered from under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code to under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 40. Thus, in view of the finding recorded, the sentence of the appellant- Muni Lal Kewat is required to be modified accordingly. 41. It is evident that the appellant- Muni Lal Kewat is own -17- nephew of the informant and thus both are close relatives and hence instead of sentencing into jail, he can be given benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act as the appellant has faced long protracted trial for around 32 years. 42. Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 reads as under:- “Section 4:- Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct.— (1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, havingregard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding three years, as the court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour: Provided that the court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond. (2) Before making any order under sub-section (1), the court shall take into consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation to the case. (3) When an order under sub-section (1) is made, the court may, if it is of opinion that in the interests of the offender and of the public it is expedient so to do, in addition pass a supervision -18- order directing that the offender shall remain under the supervision of a probation officer named in the order during such period, not being less than one year, as may be specified therein, andmay in such supervision order, impose such conditions as it deems necessary for the due supervision of the offender. (4) The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall require the offender, before he is released, to enter into a bond, with or without sureties, to observe the conditions specified in such order and such additional conditions with respect to residence, abstention from intoxicants or any other matter as the court may, having regard to the particular circumstances, consider fit to impose for preventing a repetition of the same offence or a commission of other offences by the offender. (5) The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall explain to the offender the terms and conditions of the order and shall forthwith furnish one copy of the supervision order to each of the offenders, the sureties, if any, and the probation officer concerned.” 43. Considering the fact that the Informant and the appellant- Muni Lal Kewat are own gotia and hence, the appellant –Muni Lal Kewat is extended the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and accordingly, sentence is modified and the appellant- Muni Lal Kewat is directed to be released on executing bond of Rs. 5000/- with one surety for a period of one year before the learned Court below i.e. learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka by giving benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and as such, the appellant-Muni Lal Kewat is directed to be released on his entering into a bond of Rs. 5000/- with one surety for a period of one year and to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding one year, and in the meantime, the appellant is directed to keep the -19- peace and be of good behaviour. 44. With the above observations and directions, this Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 590 of 2003 is hereby allowed in part. 45. Learned Member Secretary, JHALSA is directed to pay Rs. 5,500/- to Mrs. Juhi Kumari, learned Amicus Curiae for assisting the Court. 46. Let a copy of this Judgment along with the Original Lower Court Records be sent to the learned Court below at once and also a copy of this order be sent to the learned Member Secretary, JHALSA for the needful. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Kamlesh/NAFR