2026:JHHC:16773 (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 113 of 2009) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 07 of 2004 -------- [Against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.11.2003, passed in Sessions Trial No. 136 of 2002 by the learned Sessions Judge, Godda.] ------- 1. Tuntun Ravi Das, S/o. Prayag Ram Das, R/o. Vill.- Pankhoria, P.S.- Sonakhar, Dist.- Bhagalpur. 2. Shiv Pujan Ravidas, S/o. Dilu Ravidas R/o. Vill.- Kishan Prasad Lal Bathani, P.S. & Dist.- Sahebganj. ... ... Appellants Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Kiran Devi, W/o. Pramod Rabidas, R/o. Vill.- Meharma, P.O. & P.S.- Meharma, Dist.- Godda. …… Respondents -------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Appellants : Mrs. Vani Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, A.P.P. For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. Mahesh Kr. Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Gaurav Priyadarshi, Advocate : Ms. Twinkle Rani, Advocate : Mr. Anup Kumr Yadav, Advocate -------- J U D G M E N T CAV On: 12th May, 2026 Pronounced on: 10 /06/2026 1. Heard Mrs. Vani Kumari, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr Rajneesh Vardhan, learned A.P.P. as well as Mr. Mahesh Kr. Sinha, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2. 2. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.11.2003 passed in Sessions Trial No. 136 of 2002 by the learned Sessions Judge, Godda, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for five (05) years each. 2 (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 07 of 2004) Factual Matrix:- 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the informant Kiran Devi was married with accused Shiv Pujan Ravidas (Appellant No. 2) and she was blessed with two children. Thereafter, her husband deserted her and ousted from matrimonial home. It is alleged that due to matrimonial discard, the informant solemnized second marriage with one Pramod Ravidas and started living with him and with union of Pramod Ravidas, she was also blessed with another two children. It is further alleged that since 10 – 15 days ago, when the informant had gone to her mother's house and was residing there at village Meharma, where her previous husband Shiv Pujan Ravidas (Appellant No. 2) came and told her to accompany him and live with him but she declined and told that she has already married with another person Pramod Ravidas and having two children from him. It is further alleged that on 24.04.2000, Shiv Pujan Ravidas again reached to the house of the informant's mother alongwith his maternal brother Tuntun Ravi Das (Appellant No. 1). At that time, mother of the informant Mos. Koyali, her aunt Dhaneshari Mosomat and sister were sitting in the courtyard of the house. It is alleged that accused Shiv Pujan Ravidas (Appellant No.2) caught hold of the informant and pushed her on the ground and accused Tuntun Ravi Das (Appellant No. 1) inflicted knife blow on the neck, back of the head of the informant. Informant's mother, aunt and sister tried to rescue her and in that process, again the informant received knife injury on the thumb of her left hand. The 3 (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 07 of 2004) accused persons (both the appellants) fled away from the place of occurrence. Thereafter, the informant was taken to hospital by her mother, aunt and sister. 4. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant recorded at Meharma hospital by the then A.S.I. B. Heranj on 24.04.2000 at about 21:30 hours, the F.I.R. was registered being Meharma P.S. Case No. 50 of 2000 for the offences under Sections 341, 324 & 307/34 of I.P.C. 5. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants for the aforesaid offences and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions, where Sessions Trial No. 136 of 2002 was registered and charges were framed. The appellants denied the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried. 6. In the course of trial, altogether 10 witnesses were examined by the prosecution:- P.W.-1 Kiran Devi (Informant) P.W.-2 Mos. Koyali P.W.-3 Dhaneshari Mosomat P.W.-4 Suman Devi P.W.-5 Raghunandan Ravidas P.W.-6 Bharat Ravidas P.W.-7 Basuki Das P.W.-8 Jay Ram Das P.W.-9 Dr. Pravesh Paswan P.W.-10 Siya Ram Prasad Gupta 4 (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 07 of 2004) Apart from oral evidence, following documentary evidences have been adduced by the prosecution:- i. Exhibit-1 Injury Report ii. Exhibit-2 Fardbeyan iii. Exhibit-3 Endorsement on Fardbeyan iv. Exhibit-4 Formal F.I.R. 7. The case of the defence is denial from the occurrence and false implication. However, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. 8. The learned Trial Court after evaluating the evidence available on record adduced by the prosecution, arrived at conclusion about guilt of the appellants for the offence under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced them accordingly, which has been assailed in this appeal. Submissions on behalf of the appellants:- 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously argued that the injuries sustained by the informant are only on muscles deep and no bone cut injury was found in spite of that it was opined to be grievous in nature. Although, it was opined by PW-9 Dr. Pravesh Paswan that the Injury No. (i), (ii) & (iii) were life threatening but it was not opined that it was likely to cause death. Therefore, offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is not constituted in this case rather it may come under Section 308 and 326 I.P.C. The occurrence is of the year 2000 and more than 25 years has been elapsed from initiation of prosecution. The appellants have undergone the agony of trial for such a long period and also have remained in custody about 6-7 months during trial of the case. It is 5 (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 07 of 2004) clearly mentioned in the impugned judgment that it was the first offence of the appellant but they have not been extended the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, to which the appellants deserve considering the nature of injury caused to the informant. The appellants have maintained peaceful life without indulging in any criminal activity even post occurrence of this case. The appellants were granted bail during pendency of this appeal vide order dated 01.04.2004. Therefore, sending them again for sustaining remaining period of imprisonment would serve no useful purpose. The informant- cum-injured has also settled in her life with her second husband and leading peaceful marital life. In the above circumstance, the appellants may be extended the benefits of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Submissions on behalf of the Respondents:- 10. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. assisted by learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and defended the impugned judgment on merits. It is submitted that the victim-cum-injured is none else but wife of appellant no. 2 who was compelled to solemnize her second marriage in spite of having two children from the appellant due to his ruthless conduct and torture against the informant. The injury sustained by the informant-cum-injured has also been corroborated from the medical examination report proved by PW-9 Dr. Pravesh Paswan. Other witnesses of the case, who happens to be mother, sister and aunt of the informant, have also consistently proved the presence and participation 6 (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 07 of 2004) of the appellants in the alleged offence. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order calling for any interference in this appeal which is fit to be dismissed. Analysis, discussions and reasons: - 11. I have gone through the records of the case alongwith impugned judgment and order and in light of the contentions raised on behalf of both the parties. 12. The only point for determination in this appeal is that "as to whether the impugned judgment and order conviction and sentence of the appellants suffers from any serious error of law calling for any interference in this appeal or not." 13. It appears that prosecution has adduced altogether 10 witnesses out of which PW-4, PW-5 & PW-6 have not supported the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile. PW-5 does not deny that the informant was not assaulted but she has shown ignorance about the person or persons who had assaulted her. Similarly, PW-6 does not deny that the informant was assaulted. He has simply stated that he does not know as to who had inflicted injury to the informant. PW-7 & PW-8 have also supported the prosecution case. PW-1 Kiran Devi is the informant-cum-injured in this case. She has stated in her evidence that she was in the courtyard of the house of her mother alongwith Koili Devi, Suman Devi and Dhaneshwari Devi. Her first marriage was solemnized with the appellant no. 2 Shiv Pujan Ravidas but after birth of two children, she was ousted from his house. Thereafter, she returned to village Mehrma and married with one 7 (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 07 of 2004) Pramod Ravidas. She further states that her two children were living with Shiv Pujan Ravidas. She has further stated that 10 days prior to the occurrence, Shiv Pujan Ravidas had come to her house and told her to accompany him but she declined to do so, on the ground that she has already married with Pramod Ravidas and she was blessed with another two children. She has further stated that on the date of occurrence, Shiv Pujan Ravidas came and inflicted injury to her by knife. She sustained knife injury on the neck and thumb of her left hand. The injuries were inflicted on her in order to take her life. At the time of occurrence, Shiv Pujan Ravidas had caught hold her and Tuntun Ravi Das had inflicted injuries by knife. The informant's mother, aunt and sister tried to save her. The accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence and thereafter, the informant was taken to hospital for her treatment. PW-9 Dr. Pravesh Paswan has examined the informant-cum-injured Kiran Devi on 24.04.2000 at about 8:00 P.M. and found following injuries on her person:- 1. One penetrating wound (stab wound) of 1" x 1"x muscle deep on the middle part of right side of neck. 2. One penetrating wound (stab wound) on the middle part of back of neck (in cervical vertebra region) Size of wound 1" x 1" x muscle deep. 3. One incised wound approximately of 4" x ½ "x skin deep. The wound was extending from temporal scalp to occipital scalp right side. 8 (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 07 of 2004) 4. Incised wound about 1" x 1" x muscle deep on the part of left thumb region. As per opinion of the doctor, all the injuries except 2 & 3 were caused by sharp pointed weapons such as bhala. Injury nos. 1 to 3 were life threatening which may be fatal. They were of grievous in nature. Injury no. 4 was simple in nature caused by sharp cutting instruments. Injury no. 3 was also caused by sharp cutting weapons In his cross-examination, this witness has deposed that injuries found on the person of the injured do not come under the definition laid down under Section 320 of the I.P.C. 14. In view of the above discussion, it is transparent that informant and other witnesses have categorically proved the assault given by the appellants in a pre-planned manner by lethal weapon like knife and there are four injuries sustained by the informant on vital part of body which was opined to be life threatening injuries and also grievous in nature. The evidence of witnesses suffers from no material contradictions or discrepancies to disbelieve their testimony. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction of the appellants, which is hereby upheld and confirmed. 15. So far non-extension of benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the appellants is concerned, it is quite obvious from perusal of records that it was first offence of the appellants, the dispute also arose on account of matrimonial discard between the informant and 9 (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 07 of 2004) her previous husband. It is also apparent that occurrence is of the 25 years old and both informant and the accused persons have settled in their life and enjoying their conjugal life separately. Therefore, reformative theory of punishment must be given precedence over the deterrent theory. Therefore, having the cumulative effect of circumstances of this case and nature of offence committed by the appellants as well as their age, character and antecedent, it appears expediently for the ends of justice that the appellants deserve the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act,1958. 16. 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 the learned Trial Court, the appellants are hereby directed to be released on furnishing bonds 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 their attendance for furnishing the bond. 18. In case of violation of terms and conditions of the bond, the appellants shall be called upon to receive the sentence already awarded to them. 19. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly. 10 (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 07 of 2004) 20. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record be sent back immediately to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated: 10/06/2026 Rahul / NAFR Uploaded on 11/06/2026