2025:JHHC:29770 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 957 of 2008 1.Md. Khalil Mian @ Khalil Ahmad 2.Md. Sabbir Husain @ Shabbir Mian 3.Md. Mobarak Husain @ Mobarak Mian 4.M. Ainul Haque @ Ainul Mian 5.Md. Maniruddin Mian @ Manir Mian All are son of Sukruddin Mian 6.Sukuruddin Mian S/o late Jhuman Mian All resident of Village-Digalpari, P.S-Sikaripara, District Dumka …… Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand ……. Respondent ------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD -------- For the Appellant : Mr. Indu Shekhar Gupta, Advocate For the State : Mr. Azeemuddin, APP ------- Oral Judgment in Court 07/Date:26th August, 2025 This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 14.09.2007 passed in Sessions Case No.68 of 2006 by Sri Alok Kumar Dubey, then learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C, Dumka by which the Appellant No.1 to 5 have been convicted for the offence under Sections 324/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I for two (02) years each whereas the Appellant No.6- Sukuruddin Mian was ordered to be released for one year on furnishing securities of Rs.2,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, and to appear and receive sentence as and when called in that period and in the meantime, he is ordered to keep peace and be of good behaviour. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Appellant Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 namely, Md. Khalil Mian @ Khalil Ahmad, Md. Mobarak Hussain @ Mobarak Mian, M. 2025:JHHC:29770 2 Ainul Haque @ Ainul Mian and Md. Maniruddin Mian @ Manir Mian are aged persons and even Appellant No.6-Sukuruddin Mian was 70 years at the time of occurrence. It is further submitted that so far as Appellant No.6-Sukuruddin Mian is concerned, he has already furnished bond and he is not pressing appeal on merit. However, so far as Appellant Nos.1 to 5 are concerned, it is submitted that they are facing long trial for around 20 years and hence lenient view may be taken against them for imposing the sentence 3. On the other hand, learned APP raised objection. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that informant had lodged FIR against the appellants on 12.06.2005 under sections 147/447/341/323 of IPC. However, the police after making an investigation had submitted charge sheet against all the appellants under section 147/447/324/307/341 and 323 of IPC on 12.12.2005 before the learned C.J.M, Dumka and the learned C.J.M took cognizance on 21.12.2005 against them under section 147/447/324/307/341 and 323 of IPC. 5. After supplying the police papers to the appellants charges were framed against the appellants on 17.05.2006 under Sections 147, 447, 323, 324 and 307 IPC and to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case, got examined eleven (11) witnesses, who are as follows: (i) P.W-1 is Jubeda Bibi, (ii) P.W-2 is Samina Bibi, (iii) P.W-3 is Qumaruddin Mian, (iv) P.W-4 is Shakila Bibi, (v) P.W-5 is Md Sanaullah Mian @ Ansari, (vi) P.W-6 is Abdul Mian i.e. the Informant, (vii) P.W-7 is Ataullah Ansari, (viii) P.W-8 is Siddique Ansari, 2025:JHHC:29770 3 (ix) P.W-9 is Suresh Singh, (x) P.W-10 is Dr. Neyel Kisku and (xi) P.W-11 is Dr. Dhan Hembrom. 7. The prosecution has got marked the following documents in support of its case, which are as follows:- (i) Exhibit-1 is the written informant (Fardbeyan), (ii) Exhibit-2 is signature of informant on fardbeyan and (iii) Exhibit-3 to 3/2 are the injury reports. 8. Thereafter the appellants were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C on 14.08.2007 and to which they denied the circumstances put forth before them. 9. Neither any witness was examined nor any document was marked as Exhibit on the behalf of the defence side. 10. Thereafter the learned Court below has passed the impugned judgment and sentence as mentioned above. 11. It appears that Appellant No.6-Sukuruddin Mian has already furnished bond on 14.09.2007 and the learned counsel for the Appellant No.6 has not pressed the appeal. 12. Accordingly, the appeal as against Appellant No.6- Sukuruddin Mian stands dismissed as not pressed for and the conviction of the Appellant No.6-Sukuruddin Mian is affirmed to the extent that he has already furnished the bond and it has become infructuous so far as Appellant No.6-Sukuruddin Mian is concerned. 13. P.W-10 is Dr. Neyel Kisku who found the following injuries on the person of the injured Md. Sanaullah Ansari, as follows:- “(i) Sutured injury 6 c.m. long on mid temporal scalp which is linear and vertically directed. (ii) Lacerated wound 6 c.m x 1 c.m. along with length of the right clavicle. 2025:JHHC:29770 4 (iii) Small laceration on lateral side and above right eye brow. (iv) Laceration small on left arm.” Opinion-All the injuries were simple in nature. Injury No.1 was caused by sharp weapon and injury Nos.2 to 4 by hard and blunt weapon. 14. P.W-11 is Dr. Dhan Hembrom who has examined the injured Abdul Mian and found the following injuries on his person, as follows:- “(i) Lacerated wound over the right forearm 1 ½” x ½” x skin deep” Opinion-The injury is simple in nature. On the same day, he examined Md. Sanaullah Ansari and found the following injuries on his person, as follows:- “(i) Lacerated wound over the scalp mid line 2” x ½” x skin deep, (ii) Abrasion on right side of clavical measuring 1” x ¼”, (iii) Bruise over right upper arm below shoulder level 3” x ½”, (iv) Bruise over left side of sub-scapular region 4” x ½” (v) Bruise over right side of posterior aspect of scapular region 2 ½” x ½”.” Opinion-The injury are simple in nature and might be inflicted by hard blunt substance. 15. It appears that the injury of the injured person in question, was found simple in nature. 16. From perusal of evidence, it appears both sides are having the land dispute. 17. Considering the fact that the occurrence took place on 12.06.2005 and more than 20 years have passed, the appellant Nos.1 to 5 namely, Md. Khalil Mian @ Khalil Ahmad, Md. Sabbir Hussain @ Sabbir Mian, Md. Mobarak Hussain @ Mobarak Mian, M. Ainul Haque @ Ainul Mian and Md. 2025:JHHC:29770 5 Maniruddin Mian @ Manir Mian can be given the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 18. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 which reads as under:- “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, 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. (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. 2025:JHHC:29770 6 (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.” 19. Considering the fact and circumstances of this case, the Appellant Nos.1 to 5 namely, Md. Khalil Mian @ Khalil Ahmad, Md. Sabbir Hussain @ Sabbir Mian, Md. Mobarak Hussain @ Mobarak Mian, M. Ainul Haque @ Ainul Mian and Md. Maniruddin Mian @ Manir Mian are directed to furnish probation bond of Rs.5,000/- for a period of one year and receive sentence when called upon for a period of one year and in the meantime, they are directed to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. 20. Thus, this Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.957 of 2008 is dismissed with modification in sentence as mentioned above. 21. Let a copy of this judgment along with L.C.R be sent back before the learned Court below. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Saket/-