2026:JHHC:14345 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.656 of 2008 Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.656 of 2008 …… [Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 19.05.2008, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Palamu in Sessions Trial No.72 of 2002] …… 1. Moti Pathak, son of Late Durga Pathak of village Bhandari, P.S. Mahatu, District Palamau. 2. Rinku Pandey, son of Shri Kanchan Pandey of village Redma, P.S. Daltonganj, Palamau. … Appellants Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Niranjan Pathak S/o Shri Bindeshwar Pathak R/o Village-Bhandari P.S. Manatu Distt.-Palamau. … Respondents ------ For the Appellants : Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Venkatesh Kumar, Adv. Ms. Anita, Adv. For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P. ------ P R E S E N T Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT Dated - 11.05.2026 By Court:- Heard Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State. 2. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of 2026:JHHC:14345 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.656 of 2008 Page | 2 sentence dated 19.05.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Palamu in Sessions Trial No.72 of 2002 arising out of Sadar P.S. Case No.205 of 2001, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for the offence under Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for 5 years along with fine of Rs.5000/- each with default stipulation. 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal as emerging from the fardbeyan of the informant Niranjan Pathak recorded on 31.08.2001, is that while he had gone along with his sister Jyoti Bala for her admission in Mahila College and was taking breakfast at the residence of his cousin Dilip Kumar Pathak near Redma Chowk, one Rinku Pandey (appellant No.2) informed him that Moti Pathak (appellant No.1) of his village was calling him at a nearby park. It is alleged that upon reaching the said place at about 10:00 a.m., he found Moti Pathak accompanied by two unknown persons armed with rod and lathi and on the exhortation of Moti Pathak, he was surrounded and assaulted. The informant has alleged that Rinku Pandey assaulted him with the butt of a 2026:JHHC:14345 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.656 of 2008 Page | 3 pistol causing injury on his head, while Moti Pathak assaulted him with an iron rod, resulting in injuries on his fingers and knee when he attempted to defend himself. On alarm being raised, local people assembled there and the accused persons fled away hurling abuses. The alleged motive behind the occurrence was stated to be the accused’s objection to the informant working as a private teacher in a Madrasa school at Village Guruha. On the basis of above fardbeyan, Sadar P.S. Case No.205 of 2001 was registered for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504/34, 325, 307 of the I.P.C. 4. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 325, 307 and 504/34 of the I.P.C. and accordingly, cognizance was taken and subsequently, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charge was framed under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C. against the appellants which were read over and explained to them for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 2026:JHHC:14345 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.656 of 2008 Page | 4 5. In the course of trial, altogether nine witnesses were examined and several documentary evidences were also adduced by the prosecution. 6. On the other hand, only one witness has been examined by the defence and documentary evidence was also adduced. 7. After conclusion of trial, impugned judgment and order has been passed which has been assailed in this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants without touching the merits of the judgment has confined himself towards the point of non-extension of the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. It is further submitted that it was first offence of the appellant but the learned Trial Court has declined to extend the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act only on the ground that the injured was assaulted by rod causing grievous injuries. No special reason has been recorded as mandated under law. At the time of examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., appellant No.1 was more than 62 years of age and at present he is more than 80 years of age. It is further submitted that the occurrence was of the year 2001 now 25 years have been elapsed and the appellants have sufficiently been punished 2026:JHHC:14345 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.656 of 2008 Page | 5 for their guilt. Therefore, appellants deserve benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment as awarded by the learned Trial Court. 9. On the other hand, learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State has defended the impugned judgment on merits but so far giving the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act is concerned, she has fairly admitted that it was first offence of the appellants, therefore, appropriate order may be passed. 10. I have given anxious consideration to the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of both side and also perused the impugned judgment and order along with materials available on record. 11. It appears that plea of first offence taken by appellants at the time of hearing on quantum of sentence, has been rejected by learned Trial Court only on the ground of seriousness of offence. It is also a fact that the appellant has never been previously convicted for any other offence. The incident was of the year 2001 and more than two decades have been passed since the date of commission of offence. It 2026:JHHC:14345 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.656 of 2008 Page | 6 is also pleaded that the appellants in the aforesaid period have also maintained peace and harmony and has never been involved in any other criminal activities. 12. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, there is no requirement of calling for any report from the Probation Officer due to lapse of considerable time from the alleged occurrence. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of offence committed by the appellants, the genesis and manner of occurrence, age, antecedent and character of the appellants, it is expedient in the ends of justice to extend the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the appellants, for which the appellants appear to be entitled, instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment. 14. 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, the appellants are hereby directed to be released on furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with one surety of like 2026:JHHC:14345 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.656 of 2008 Page | 7 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 six months from the date of furnishing the bond. 15. 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. 16. In case of violation of terms and conditions of the bond, the learned Trial Court shall call upon the appellants to serve the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to them. 17. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. 18. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court record be sent back to the concerned Trial Court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 11/05/2026 Sachin / Uploaded On: 15/05/2026