( 2025:JHHC:19053 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1279 of 2005 1. Kapildeo Pandit 2. Narayan Pandit 3. Radhey Shyam Pandit 4. Durga Pandit All are resident of Village-Kurmichack, P.S.-Godda(M.), District-Godda … Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Respondent ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Appellants : Mr. Manoj Kr. Sah, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P. ….. Order No.10 / Dated: 02.04.2025 This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants by challenging the judgment dated 15.09.2005 in Sessions Case No. 9/1991 /17 of 2004 passed by Sri Ram Bachchan Singh , the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge ( F.T.C. No.-III) Godda by which all the original appellants were convicted for the offences under section 147, 323 , 325, 149 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one (01) year and R.I. for one (01) year and R.I. for three (03) years respectively and all sentences have been directed to run con-currently. 2. The prosecution case as disclosed in the Fardbeyan of informant, Mahavir Pandit (P.W.10) recorded by N.K. Srivastava, then O/c of Godda (M)P.S. on Godda, is that in the morning the aforesaid day at about 7.00 O'clock his Gotiyas, namely, Kapil Pandit, Narayan Pandit, Hemlal Pandit, Kaleshwar Pandit, Murli Pandit, Radheshyam Pandit started fencing Khuta over his ( 2025:JHHC:19053 ) 2 land lying in front of his residential house. At this, the informant’s mother, wife, brother, Sitaram Pandit objected to, then the aforesaid persons did not pay any heed claiming that the land belong to them. It is further alleged specifically that in the meantime Kapildeo Pandit gave lathi blow to his wife causing injuries both in his right hand and head. Thereafter the accused Narayan Pandit also gave a lathi blow to his mother causing injury in her hand. All the accused persons also assaulted his brother conjointly by means of Lathi. It is further pointed out that the accused Murli Pandit was armed with Bhala and due to the sustaining injuries all the three Injured became senseless and they were taken to the Godda Hospital for treatment. The informant has claimed that the aforesaid accused persons assaulted his family members mercilessly with intent to kill and the said incident was witnessed by the villagers, namely, Jhabulal Pandit, Kameshwar Pandit, Jhathru Pandit and Harishchandra Pandit and others. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Special .P.P. . 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that impugned judgment and sentence passed by the learned Court below is illegal and not sustainable in eye of law, however during course of submission learned counsel for the appellants submitted that he is arguing only on the point of sentence as more then 35 years have passed from the date of occurrence and the surviving appellants are ready to compensate the ( 2025:JHHC:19053 ) 3 Informant injured persons and hence lenient view may be taken . 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has raised objection but she has falsely submitted that the question of compensation can be considered for grant of compensation for the injured persons. 6. Perused the records of this case and considered the submission made by both the sides. 7. It transpires that the F.I.R. was lodged on 14.05.1990 against the appellants. 8. It transpires that the police, after making investigation, had submitted the charge-sheet on 15.06.1990 for the offences under sections 147/ 148/149/ 325/447/307/323 of IPC against the original appellants . Thereafter, learned CJM had taken cognizance under section 147,148 149, 323, 325,449 and 307 of IPC against the appellants. 9. After supplying the police papers to the accused i.e. the appellants, charges were framed on 25.09.2002 for the offences under sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 307/ 149 of the IPC and 447 of the I.P.C and to which all the original appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried . 10. It transpires that prosecution had got examined Twelve (12) witnesses in support of its case who are as follows:- (i) P.W. 1 is Most. Jugni i.e. the mother of the Informant, (ii) P.W. 2 is Sitaram Pandit (elder brother of the Informant), (iii) P.W. 3 is Kameshwar Pandit, ( 2025:JHHC:19053 ) 4 (iv) P.W. 4 is Sarveshwar Pandit , (v) P.W. 5 is Shankar Pandit , (vi) P.W. 6 is Mahesh Pandit, (vii) P.W. 7 is Khublal Pandit, (viii) P.W. 8 is Shyam Sunder Pandit, (ix) P.W. 9 is Sita Devi, (x) P.W. 10 is Mahavir Pandit i.e. the Informant (xi) P.W. 11 Dr. Ajay Kumar Jha and (xii) P.W. 12 is Jyotish Kumar 11. The prosecution got proved the following documents as the Exhibit which are as follows:- (i) Exhibit -1 is signature of Informant on Fardbeyan, (ii) Exhibit – 2 is Injury report of the Sita Ram Pandit, (iii) Exhibit -2/1 is supplementary injury report of the Sita Ram Pandit, (iv) Exhibit-3 is Injury report of Srimati Jugni Devi, (v) Exhibit –4 is Injury report of Srimati Sita Devi, (vi) Exhibit – 5 is writing and signature on the Fardbeyan (vii) Exhibit – 5/1 is forwarding the Fardbeyan , ( viii) Exhibit -6 is endorsement on Fardbeyan, (ix) Exhibit -7 is formal F.I.R. (x) Exhibit –8 is certified copy of order dated 21.09.1991 passed by Sri B.K. Mandal, then J.M, Godda, (xi) Exhibit -9 is certified copy of judgment dated 06.04.1993 passed by Sri N.K. Gupta in P.C.R Case No. 325 of 1990 , T.R. No. 86 of 1993 12. Thereafter, the appellants were examined under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. on 29.07.2005 by the learned ( 2025:JHHC:19053 ) 5 Court below and who denied the circumstances put forth before them. 13. The defence has supported his case got examined two witnesses who are as follows:- (i) D.W. 1 is Bindeshwar Pandit who proved Mutual Batwaranama dated 12.06.1956 and (ii) D.W. 2 is Ram Prasad Pandit @ Moti Lal Pandit has proved certain documents. 14. The defence got proved the following documents as the Exhibit which are as follows: (i) Exhibit -A is Batwaranama, (ii) Exhibit -B is Mutual Batwaranama dated 03.10.1983, (iii) Exhibit -C is written Batwaranama agreement entered into on 24.05.1998 , (iv) Exhibit-D to D/7 are the rent receipt pertaining to village Sarouni standing on the name of Thakuri Pandit and others and (v) Exhibit-E is certified copy of Survey Parcha of the said village Sarouni standing on the name of Thakuri Pandit and Others . 15. Thereafter, the learned Court below has convicted all the original appellants for the offence under section 147, 323, 325, of the IPC and 447 of the I.P.C and sentenced them on different counts as mentioned above. 16. During pendency of this appeal the appellant Nos. 3, 4, and 5 namely Hemlal Pandit, Kaleshwar Pandit and Murli Pandit respectively have died and their names have already been deleted vide order dated 23.01.2025 passed by this Court . ( 2025:JHHC:19053 ) 6 Thus this appeal survived in respect of appellant Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 7 namely Kapildeo Pandit, Narayan Pandit, Radhey Shyam Pandit and Durga Pandit respectively. 17. P.W. 11 is Dr. Ajay Kumar Jha who examined the injured persons and found following injury on their person which were as follows:- (i) Bruise 3‖ X 1‖ on right side of forehead over a swelling with mark tenderness, (ii) Bruise 3"x1" on front of left thorasic region lower part (7 to 9 rib) over a swelling (iii) Bruise 2"x1" on dorsum of left foot over a swelling. The doctor has further opined that the nature of injury nos. (ii) and (iii) are simple and caused by hard and blunt substance but with regard to the injury no. (i) he kept his opinion reserved awaiting for x-ray report. He also deposed that age of injury 12 hours of the examination. He has further deposed proving the supplementary injury report ( Ext. 2/1) that on receipt of X-ray report(Ext.2/1)that on receipt of X-ray report submitted with respect to the injury No. (i) , he found that the said x-ray shows fracture of parietal bone ( right side of skull ) so the said injury No. (i) is grievous in nature. The P.W. 11 i.e. the Doctor has further deposed that one the same day at 12:45 pm he examined Smt. Jagni Devi and found following injures on her person:- (i) Bruise 2’X1/2‖ on outer aspect of left wrist over a swelling ( 2025:JHHC:19053 ) 7 (ii) Bruise 3‖ X 1‖ on back of trunk of right side of spine at the level of 2nd limbs of vertibra . The P.W. 11 i.e. the Doctor stated that all the injuries are simple one and caused by hard and blunt substance within 12 hours of the examination. The P.W. 11i.e. the Doctor has further deposed that one the same day at 12:40 pm he had also examined Smt. Sita Devi wife of Mahavir Pandit and found following injures on her person which were as follows:- (i) Abrasion 4‖ in length and 1‖ in breadth over front of left forearm on lower half. (ii) Bruise 3‖X1‖ on back of trunk over a swelling on left side of spine with mark tenderness at L2-L3 and (iii) Complain of pain abdomen with little blood discharged from genitalia. 18. The P.W. 11 i.e. the doctor has further stated opining that the Injury no.(i) is simple in nature but he kept his opinion reserved regarding injury no. (ii) and (iii)awaiting for X -ray report. It has further deposed concluding that the said injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance within 12 hours of the examination. There were two injuries on the person of Sita Devi and Jagni Devi which were found simple in nature . 19. This is a case of long trial for more than 30 years and hence the appellants can be given the benefit of under section 4 of Probation of Offender Act which is as follows:- ―Para 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 ( 2025:JHHC:19053 ) 8 life and the court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard 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. 1. The words ―except the State of Jammu and Kashmir‖ omitted by Act 34 of 2019, s. 95 and the Fifth Schedule (w.e.f. 31-10-2019). 2 (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 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, and may 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. 20. Considering the fact and circumstances as mentioned above the conviction of appellants under sections 147, 323, 325, 149 of the IPC is affirmed . 21. However , so far as sentence is concerned, it is clear that more than 34 years have passed from the date of FIR and hence the appellants are directed to execute the probation ( 2025:JHHC:19053 ) 9 bonds of Rs. 2000/- for a period of one (01) years , with one security for the period of one year and also subject of payment of Rs. 15,000/- each to the three injured namely Sita Ram Pandit, Smt. Jugni Devi and Sita Devi or their respective legal heirs . 21 Thus this Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 1279 is dismissed with the modification in the sentence as mentioned above. 22. Let the copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Court below and the Original Lower Court Record be also sent to the learned Court below at once by the office. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Bibha/