2026:JHHC:11600 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 378 of 2009 [Against the Judgment of conviction dated 09.04.2009 and Order of sentence dated 13.04.2009, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Koderma, in Sessions Trial No. 214 of 2007] 1. Anirudh Pandey, son of Late Sukhdeo Pandey. 2. Chintu Pandey, son of Anirudh Pandey. Both R/o Gumo, Ward No. 15, Jhumri Telaiya, P.S.-Telaiya & District – Koderma. … … Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent ….. For the Appellants : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Shashi Kr. Verma, A.P.P. ….. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT Dated : 20th April, 2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Present criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 09.04.2009 and order of sentence dated 13.04.2009 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Koderma in Sessions Trial No. 214 of 2007, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been held guilty for the offence under Sections 323, 325, 307 & 504 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years each for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C., R.I. for 3 years each for the offence under Section 325 of the I.P.C., further R.I. for 1 year each for the offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C. and S.I. for 6 months each for the offence under 2026:JHHC:11600 Section 504 of the I.P.C. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 22.07.2007 at about 8:00 A.M. in the morning, on the issue of drain water, a hot exchange of words was taking place between the mother of the informant and the wife of the accused Anirudh Pandey, then Anirudh Pandey and Chintu Pandey came to the doors of the informant armed with lathi and started abusing the informant and hitting the informant with lathi, as a result of which, the informant received injury on his head. The father of the informant Badri Ram came to save, but both the accused persons also assaulted him, as a result of which he also received injury on his head from where, blood started oozing out and his father was also assaulted on the other parts of the body. On the basis of written report of Nand Kishore Ram, F.I.R. being Koderma (T) P.S. Case No. 337 of 2007 was registered against the accused persons under Sections 341, 323, 324 & 504 of the I.P.C. 4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons under Sections 307, 341, 323, 324 and 504 of the I.P.C. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to 2026:JHHC:11600 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. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that both the appellants are related as father and son. Admittedly, there was dispute of drainage between the informant and the appellants, which ended in exchange of hot words and scuffle in a sudden manner and therefore assault by lathi was also took place, whereby one Badri Ram had sustained injuries by lathi on his head and other non-vital parts of the body and all the injuries are found to be simple in nature. The second injured Nand Kishore Ram also sustained injuries on his left portion of head. It is further submitted that the totality of circumstances under which the occurrence took place clearly goes to show that there was no such intention or knowledge for constituting the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. The injuries are also found simple in nature. Therefore, offence committed by the appellants falls under Sections 324 and 325 of the I.P.C. for assault to the injured persons. 6. It is further submitted that it was first offence of the appellants and they were never convicted for any 2026:JHHC:11600 other offence either prior to the occurrence or even post-occurrence. Learned trial court, without recording any special reason, has not extended the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the appellants, to which they deserve. 7. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has defended the impugned judgment on merits and submitted that there was injury caused by the appellants on the vital part of the body i.e. head, therefore, the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence of the victims and held the appellants guilty for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. There is no merit in this appeal, which is fit to be dismissed. 8. It appears that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Amit Rana @ Koka and Another Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2024) 15 SCC 42 has held in para-9 that :- 9. Section 307 IPC makes it clear that to attract the said offence the victim need not suffer any kind of bodily injury. The offence to commit murder punishable under Section 307 IPC is constituted by the concurrence of mens rea followed by actus reus, to commit an attempt to murder though its accomplishment or sufferance of any kind of bodily injury to the victim is not a ‘sine qua non’. In other 2026:JHHC:11600 words, if a man commits an act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if death had been caused, the offence would have amounted to murder or the act itself is of such a nature as would have caused death in the usual course of an event, but something beyond his control prevented that result, his act would constitute the offence punishable as an attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC. 9. It further appears that the Hon’ble Apex Court has also held in the case of Ratan Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Another reported in (2009) 12 SCC 585 that “The determination question is the intention or knowledge, as the case may be, and not the nature of injury.” 10. From the aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and applying the same in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, it is crystal clear that dispute in this case broke out in a very sudden manner on the trivial issue of drainage There was no intention or knowledge of the appellants to cause any deadly assault to the injured persons. The injury found on the injured persons are found to be simple in nature. Similarly, another injured had sustained injuries on head, which was found fracture, therefore, the intention or knowledge required under 2026:JHHC:11600 Section 307 of the I.P.C. is absolutely lacking in this case. 11. In view of the above discussion and reasons, the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is set aside and the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Sections 323, 325 & 504 34 of the I.P.C. is maintained. 12. So far as sentence is concerned, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that it was first offence of the appellants and they have never been convicted for any other offence, therefore, they are entitled for benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders’ Act. 13. In this context, no objection has been raised by the State. 14. From perusal of impugned order, it appears that admittedly the appellant has taken plea that it was first offence of the appellants, having no criminal antecedent, but the learned trial court without recording any special reason under law has failed to extend the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the appellants. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence committed by appellants, their age, 2026:JHHC:11600 character and antecedent, it is expedient in the ends of justice to extent the privilege of Probation of Offenders Act to the appellants. 16. Accordingly, 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, 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 peace and be of good behavior for one year from the date of furnishing the bond. 17. If the bond is not furnished within above stipulated time, the learned Trial Court shall issue notice upon the appellants to secure his attendance for furnishing the bond. 18. 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. 19. Pending I.A., if any, stand disposed of. 2026:JHHC:11600 20. 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 20th April, 2026. Sunil /N.A.F.R. Uploaded On 07/05/2026.