2025:JHHC:34430 1 Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.1310 of 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J) No.1310 of 2004 [Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.07.2004 passed in Sessions Case No.113/97/46/03, arising out of Nala (Bindapather) P.S. Case No.127 of 1995, corresponding to G.R Case No.435 of 1995 by the Court of Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey, learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Jamtara] ---- 1. Ravilal Raut, Son of Mitan Raut, resident of Village Hohduri, P.S. Binda Pathar District-Jamatara 2. Nimai Mahto, Son of Huku Mahto, resident of Village Dar, P.S. Bindapathar, District-Jamtara …. …. Appellants -Versus- The State of Jharkhand …. …. Respondent ---- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Appellants : Mr. K.K. Mishra, Adv. For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P ---- 09/Dated: 17th November, 2025 1. Heard Mr. K.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned counsel for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.07.2004 passed in Sessions Case No.113/97/46/03, arising out of Nala (Bindapather) P.S. Case No.127 of 1995, corresponding to G.R Case No.435 of 1995 by the Court of Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey, learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Jamtara whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.5,00/- each. In default thereof, they have further been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. 3. The criminal law has been put into motion by lodging an F.I.R being Nala (Bindapather) P.S. Case No.127 of 1995, corresponding to G.R Case No.435 of 1995 against the appellants. 4. The F.I.R has been lodged on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant namely, Pavitra Kumar Mahato. The brief fact of the case is that on 22.08.1995 2025:JHHC:34430 2 Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.1310 of 2004 at about 07:00 A.M, the appellants have assaulted his father namely, Shambhu Nath Mahto, while his father was preventing the above named accused persons in ploughing their Patit Plot which was or is in his possession since last 30 years. It is further alleged that the accused persons were destroying the tree of mango, Jackfruit and Sisham, grown up by the informant in the plot. On hearing alarm of his father, he along with his mother had gone there and attempted to rescue his father. Mittan Raut inflicted iron-rod blow upon the head of the Shambhu Nath Mahto consequent there to his father fell down after sustaining head injury. His mother has been assaulted by Ravilal Raut and his Bhabhi has been assaulted by Lagan Mahto with lathi. The informant has also been assaulted by Nimai Mahto with lathi. 5. The police, after investigation, has submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 307, 379 & 509 IPC. Upon which, cognizance has been taken and accordingly, charge has been framed under sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 307/34, 379 IPC. The case has been committed to the court of sessions to which the appellants have pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried. 6. To substantiate the prosecution story, altogether six witnesses has been examined. P.W.1 Kanto Kumar Mahato, P.W.2 Pavitra Kumar Mahato (informant) P.W.3 Parvati Mahatain, P.W.4 Mantu Mahato, P.W.5 Smt. Hena Mahatain and P.W.6 Dr. Deo Ranjan Das. Out of these six witnesses only three witnesses are relevant i..e, P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.6. 7. P.W.1 Kanto Kumar Mahato is the brother of the informant and has stated that accused person have assaulted firstly his father and thereafter other persons and the assault committed by the accused persons with an intention to kill his father. 8. P.W.2 Pavitra Kumar Mahato is the informant of this case, who has stated in his examination-in-chief that at the time of occurrence, he was present at his house and saw all accused persons were started ploughing in their field in which some plants were grown up by his father. He has further stated that when his father obstructed the accused person in ploughing, the accused persons have assaulted his father. He further stated that accused persons have also assaulted his mother and Bhabhi. He further stated that he has been assaulted by Ravilal Raut upon his hand due to that got fractured. 2025:JHHC:34430 3 Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.1310 of 2004 In cross-examination, he has stated that the accused has told that today you left but you shall be killed after that. He has further stated that the accused Ravilal Raut has told him that today you shall be killed. 9. P.W.6 Dr. Deo Ranjan Das is the doctor, who has examined Smt. Hena Mahto, wife of Mantu Mahto and Shambhu Nath Mahto, who was the father of the informant. As per his evidence, all injuries are simple except the injury No.(iii) i.e, contusion and abrasion over the left elbow lower limbs and right leg of Shambhu Nath Mahto is to be grievous. The injury report has been brought on record and it has been proved by the doctor. From the evidence of the doctor, it is clear that the injury sustained by the injured are not so fatal which cause death to the victim. 10. In the present case, P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 all are related witnesses. The Investigating Officer has not been examined. There are no any independent witness. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the benefit of the Probation of offenders Act, 1958 has not been extended to the appellants only on the ground that the victim was an old person. Further, it has been submitted that the incident is of the year 1995 and they have suffered a lot by wrong litigation, as such prayer has been made instead of invoking the imprisonment part, the trial court should sentence using the fine part. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the records, it appears that:- (i) The incident is of the year 1995. (ii) The scuffle has taken place between the parties when the parties were ploughing in the field. Thus, it is a normal dispute and further, no dangerous weapon has been used in the alleged crime. (iii) The nature of injury also supports the facts that it was a simple scuffle between the parties. 14. Considering above facts, the sentencing part is hereby modified to the extent that the appellants shall deposit Rs.1,000/- each as fine in the Court below within three months from today. If they fail to do so, they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days. The fine amount should be released in favour of the victim(s). 2025:JHHC:34430 4 Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.1310 of 2004 15. With the above modification of the sentencing part, the present Criminal Appeal stands partly allowed. 16. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this judgment. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 17th November, 2025 Raja/- Uploaded on 24.11.2025