2026:JHHC:15017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 813 of 2017 --------- 1. Manbhran Nayak, S/o Late Sudhar Nayak, 2. Mahipal Nayak, S/o Late Sudhar Nayak, 3. Kalyug Nayak, S/o Late Sudhar Nayak, All resident of village-Baridih, P.O. & P.S.-Palkot, Dist.-Gumla. … … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ... … Opp. Party --------- For the Petitioners : Dr. Vandana Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, A.P.P. ----------- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORDERS ---------- Dated: 14th May, 2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. 2. The instant criminal revision is preferred against the judgment dated 06.04.2017 passed in Cr. Appeal No.04 of 2017 by the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla, whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.01.2017 passed by Assistant Sessions Judge-I, Gumla under section 447/34, 323/34 and 326/34 of IPC has been upheld in connection with Palkot P.S. Case No. 76 of 2006 corresponding to Spt. G.R. No. 1042 of 2006, S.T. Case No. 92 of 2008 and S.T. No. 64 of 2007. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Factual Matrix:- 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the informant namely Hemraj Nayak has alleged that on 13.12.2006, at about 5 PM, his son Kuldeep Nayak after feeding fodder to the buffalo was returning home. When he reached near the house of Sudhar Nayak, Manbharan Nayak, son of Sudhar Nayak assaulted Kuldeep Nayak (the son of the 2026:JHHC:15017 Cr. Revision No.813 of 2017 2 informant). The son of informant came to the house and disclosed about the occurrence. It is further alleged that when all the family members of the informant were sitting in the Courtyard, his wife and nephew questioned Manbharan Nayak, why he had assaulted her son. Then, Sudhar Nayak armed with Tangi, Manbharan Nayak and Kalyug Nayak armed with Balua and Mahipal Nayak armed with stick together with common intention tress passed into their house and came to the courtyard and assaulted the family members of the informant. Informant and his wife were assaulted by Manbharan Nayak and Kalyug Nayak with Balua. The brother of the informant was assaulted by Sudhar Nayak with Tangi on his knee causing sharp cut injury. Mahipal Nayak assaulted the victims with his Lathi causing injury. The informant has also alleged that when his daughter-in-law and nephew came forward to rescue them, they also sustained injury. The villagers took them to Primary Heath Centre for treatment. The victims thereafter were referred to Gumla for better treatment. The reason behind the occurrence is land dispute between both the parties. 4. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan, Palkot P.S. Case No.76 of 2006 was instituted for the offence under sections 447, 323, 326, 307/34 of IPC. After completion of investigation, two charge-sheets were submitted against the petitioners. The case was committed to the Court of sessions and thereafter charges were framed. All the accused persons have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. Prosecution has examined altogether 8 witnesses in this case and several documentary evidences have also been adduced. 2026:JHHC:15017 Cr. Revision No.813 of 2017 3 6. On the other hand, the statements of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, in which, they have stated that they have falsely been implicated in this case and they are innocent. 7. The defence has also examined one witness and adduced several documentary evidence. Submission on behalf of petitioners: - 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners without touching the merits of the judgment has submitted that the petitioners have been convicted and sentenced for maximum one year for the offence under Section 326/34 of the IPC. It appears from the judgments of learned trial Court as well as Appellate Court that it was their first offence and in spite of specific pleading, the petitioners have not been extended the benefit of section 3/4 of Probation of Offenders Act without recording special reasons. The simple reason recorded by the learned trial Court is that benefit of Probation of Offenders Act is not applicable to the convicts in the present facts and circumstances under which it has been committed. Therefore, the learned trial Court was not inclined to extend the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioners. The reason recorded by the learned trial Court is absolutely not justifiable under law and cannot be justified by any stretch of imagination. Therefore, the petitioners deserve the benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Moreover, the occurrence is of the year 2006 and two decades have elapsed, and the petitioners have maintained peace and have settled in their life. Hence, the petitioners may be extended the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. 2026:JHHC:15017 Cr. Revision No.813 of 2017 4 Submission on behalf of the State: - 9. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has defended the impugned judgment on merits but on the point of non-extension of the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, it is fairly admitted that it was their first offence, hence, appropriate order may be passed after dismissing the revision petition. Analysis, Reasons and Decision: - 10. I have gone through the impugned judgments of court below in the light of rival contentions of the respective parties. 11. Since the learned counsel for the petitioners without touching the merits of the judgments has confined himself towards the grant of benefit of provision of Probation of Offenders Act and no objection has been raised by the learned A.P.P., therefore, I have gone through the impugned judgments passed by learned trial court as well as Appellate Court and it appears that at the point of hearing on sentence, specific plea was taken by the petitioners that it was their first offence, hence, the petitioners may be released on probation bond giving benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. 12. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the conviction of the petitioners is hereby upheld but so far as the sentence awarded by the learned trial court and upheld by learned appellate court to the above- named petitioners is concerned, is modified and the trial court is directed to release the petitioners extending the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, upon furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, within two months, from the date of this order, with 2026:JHHC:15017 Cr. Revision No.813 of 2017 5 condition to maintain peace and good behavior for one year from the date of furnishing the bond. 13. If the bond is not furnished within above stipulated time, the learned Trial Court shall issue notice upon the petitioners to secure their attendance for furnishing the bond. 14. In case of violation of the terms and conditions of the bond, the petitioners shall be called upon to receive the sentence of imprisonment already awarded to them by the concerned trial court. 15. In view of above discussion and reasons, this revision is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence as stated above 16. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly. 17. Let a copy of this order along with Lower Court Record be sent back to the concerned trial court immediately for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) 14/05/2026 Basant Uploaded On 19/05/2026