2026:JHHC:11039 p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 76 of 2009 [Against the Judgment of conviction dated 14.01.2009 and Order of sentence dated 15.01.2009, passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Dumka, in Sessions Case No. 36 of 2008] 1. Shankar Mandal, son of Balav Mandal, resident of Village – Sharshathari, P.S. – Hansdiha, District – Dumka (Jharkhand). 2. Shashibhusan Mandal, son of Late Puran Mandal, resident of Village – Sharsathari, P.S. – Hansdiha, District – Dumka (Jharkhand). … … Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent ….. For the Appellants : Mr. D.C. Mishra, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. P.D. Agarwal, Spl.P.P. ….. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT Dated 13.04.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Present criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 14.01.2009 and order of sentence dated 15.01.2009 passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Dumka in Sessions Case No. 36 of 2008, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been held guilty for the offence under Sections 307/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years each along with fine of Rs. 500/- each with default stipulation. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 2026:JHHC:11039 p. 2 28.03.2007, the informant was returning home from Karmahat after selling vegetables. At about 6:00 P.M., when he reached near the house of Harihar Manjhi, where Shankar Mandal, Bhuwan Mandal, Balav Mandal, Kanchan Panjiysra and Shashi Bhusan Mandal were standing there from before, suddenly surrounded him and started abusing. Shankar, Balav, Kanchan and Bhuwan instigated Shashibhushan to kill him, then Shashibhushan with iron rod gave blow on his head and arm. He sustained bleeding head injury, fell down and became unconscious. Informant was brought to Sadar Hospital, Dumka by his family members, where he was under treatment. The cause of occurrence is previous land dispute. On this information, F.I.R. being Saraiyahat P.S. Case No. 45 of 2007 was registered against five persons under Sections 341, 323, 307, 504/34 of the I.P.C. 4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against all the accused persons for aforesaid offences. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial. Thereafter, charge has been framed against the appellants, in which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of trial, the appellants were held guilty and sentenced as stated above. 2026:JHHC:11039 p. 3 5. Learned counsel for the appellants, instead of challenging the impugned judgment on merits, has confined his argument on the point of extending the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and has submitted that there was land dispute between the parties and the incident happened in a sudden manner. 6. It is further submitted that it is appellants’ first offence as they have never been convicted earlier for any other offence and they have no criminal antecedent, but the learned trial court has not considered the said aspect of the matter and sentenced the appellants with Rigorous Imprisonment of five years. The plea for extending the benefit of Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958 has been denied by the learned trial court without recording any special reasons as mandated under law. Hence, the appellants deserve the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment as imposed by the learned trial court. 7. Per contra, learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the aforesaid contentions and defended the impugned judgment on merits, but so far extending the benefit of Probation of the Offenders 2026:JHHC:11039 p. 4 Act, 1958 is concerned, he has admitted the first offence of appellants. 8. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment and order of sentence in the light of the contentions raised on behalf of both side. 9. It appears that the learned trial court has held that the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C. and from perusal of evidence of injured witness, namely, P.W.-5 Ganesh Manjhi along with his injury report proved by the P.W.-6, Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta, it appears that the doctor has found following injuries:- (I) Deep cut on the right side of parietal area of head up to bone 3” x ¼” causing semi consciousness to patient. (II) Deep cut up to bone on lateral outer corner of left eye with internal haemorrhage of left eye causing partial blindness of left eye. (III) Two circular abrasion spot on upper side of left shoulder joint 1” in diameter each. (IV) Skin cut of thumb of right hand at the base of nail and nail bed. The injury nos. (i) and (ii) were grievous in nature caused by sharp cut weapon. Injury 2026:JHHC:11039 p. 5 nos. (iii) and (iv) are simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. The doctor has opined that the injuries may have been caused by sharp cutting weapon. 10. I have given anxious consideration to the genesis, manner and place of occurrence, it appears that admittedly there was previous enmity due to land dispute between the parties. Considering the overall factual background, nature of offence committed by the appellants, 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 of 1958, instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment as awarded by the learned trial court. 11. In view of the above, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence to the extent that instead of undergoing substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants by learned Trial Court for the offence under Section 307/34 I.P.C., the appellants are hereby directed to be released on furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 within two months from the date of this order for maintaining 2026:JHHC:11039 p. 6 peace and be of good behavior for one year from the date of furnishing the bond. 12. If the bond is not furnished within above stipulated time, the learned Trial Court shall issue notice upon the appellants to secure their attendance for furnishing the bond. 13. In case of violation of the terms and conditions of the bond, the appellants shall be called upon by the concerned trial court to appear and receive the sentence already awarded to them. 14. Pending I.A., if any, stand disposed of. 15. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to the court concerned immediately for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, the 13th April, 2026. Sunil /N.A.F.R. Uploaded On 07/05/2026.