2026:JHHC:14912 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.686 of 2009 Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.686 of 2009 …… [Against the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence dated 30.06.2009, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No.238 of 2005] …… 1. Satish Sinha @ Satish Kumar Sinha, son of Rabindra Sinha 2. Rabindra Sinha, son of Chandradeo Sinha 3. Sabitri Devi, wife of Rabindra Sinha All are residents of Sakinan Egarkund, Mundaghora, P.O. & P.S. Chirkunda, District Dhanbad. … Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand … Respondent ------ For the Appellants : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Adv. Ms. Ashwini Priya, Adv. For the State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, A.P.P. ------ P R E S E N T Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT Dated - 14.05.2026 By Court:- Heard Ms. Ashwini Priya, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. 2. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.06.2009 passed by learned Additional 2026:JHHC:14912 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.686 of 2009 Page | 2 Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No.238 of 2005, whereby and whereunder the appellant No.1 Satish Sinha has been held guilty under Section 324 of the I.P.C. and appellant No.2 Rabindra Sinha and appellant No.3 Sabitri Devi has been held guilty under Section 323/34 of the I.P.C. and further all the accused persons were held guilty under Section 341 of the I.P.C. Convict Sabitri Devi (appellant No.3) was granted benefit of Probation of Offenders Act by learned Trial Court and has been released by entering into a bond (without surety) to maintain peace for a period of one year. Convict Satish Sinha (appellant No.1) was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for two years along with fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the I.P.C. and convict Rabindra Sinha (appellant No.2) was sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the I.P.C. along with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation. No separate sentence has been awarded under Section 341 of the I.P.C. 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal as emerging from the fardbeyan of the informant Vinay Ram is that on 2026:JHHC:14912 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.686 of 2009 Page | 3 26.04.2007, upon receiving information from his daughter Rani Kumari that the accused persons had entered his house armed with weapons and were hurling abuses, he immediately rushed to the place of occurrence. There, he allegedly found accused Rabindra Sinha and his son Satish Chandra Sinha armed with garasa, while Sabitri Devi wife of Rabindra Sinha was armed with lathi and all were abusing his wife. It is alleged that when the informant protested, Satish Chandra Sinha assaulted him with garasa causing injury on his head and Rabindra Sinha inflicted garasa blow on the waist of his wife causing injuries to her as well. It is further alleged that Sabitri Devi assaulted the informant’s wife with lathi and also snatched away her necklace and earrings. The occurrence is stated to have arisen on account of objection raised by the informant’s wife against gambling activities of the accused persons on the previous day. On the basis of above fardbeyan, Chirkunda P.S. Case No.152 of 2004 was registered for the offences under Sections 452, 341, 323, 324, 307, 504, 379/34 of the I.P.C. 4. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants for the offences under 2026:JHHC:14912 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.686 of 2009 Page | 4 Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 379, 504/34 and 452 of the I.P.C. and accordingly, cognizance was taken and subsequently, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed under Sections 323, 324, 341, 307/34, 379/34, 504/34 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. 5. In the course of trial, altogether six witnesses were examined and several documentary evidences were also adduced by the prosecution. 6. On the other hand, no oral evidence has been adduced by the defence but several documentary evidences were 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 herself towards the point of non-extension of the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the appellant Nos.1 and 2. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court has made a discrimination while granting the benefit of Section 4 of the 2026:JHHC:14912 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.686 of 2009 Page | 5 Probation of Offenders Act to the female accused persons and rejecting to the male accused persons only on the ground that they are male. It was the first offence, as such, discrimination is not warranted under law. The reason assigned by the learned Trial Court for declining from extending the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the appellants is against the mandate of law and cannot be categorized as special reasons. Hence, the appellant Nos.1 and 2 also deserve the same benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment as granted by the learned Trial Court. 9. On the other hand, learned A.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, he has fairly admitted that it is first offence of convicts as appears from the impugned judgment, 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 2026:JHHC:14912 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.686 of 2009 Page | 6 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 being male accused persons. One of the female accused namely Sabitri Devi was given benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act only on the ground of being a female. It is also a fact that the appellants have never been previously convicted for any other offence. The incident was of the year 2007 and near about two decades have been passed since the date of commission of offence. It is also pleaded that the appellants in the aforesaid period have also maintained peace and harmony and have never been involved in any other criminal activities. I find that the appellant Nos.1 and 2 also deserve the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 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. 2026:JHHC:14912 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.686 of 2009 Page | 7 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 appellant Nos.1 and 2 also, for which the appellant Nos.1 and 2 appear to be entitled, instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment. Since, the appellant No.3 namely Sabitri Devi is already released on entering into a bond, therefore, there is no need to execute a bond by her. 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 appellant Nos.1 and 2 by learned Trial Court, the appellant Nos.1 and 2 are hereby directed to be released on furnishing bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five 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 2026:JHHC:14912 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.686 of 2009 Page | 8 maintaining peace and be of good behavior for one year 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 appellant Nos.1 and 2 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 appellant Nos.1 and 2 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: 14/05/2026 Sachin / NAFR Uploaded On: 19/05/2026