2026:JHHC:16587 (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1220 of 2008) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1220 of 2008 -------- [Against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27.08.2008 & 28.08.2008 respectively, passed in Sessions Case No. 213 of 2007 by the learned 5th Addl. Sessions Judge,(F.T.C.), Dumka.] ------- Para Kewat, S/o. Late Chand Kewat, R/o. Vill.- Sankara under, P.O.- Amgachi, P.S.-Kathikund, Dist.- Dumka, Jharkhand. ... ... Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Respondent -------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Appellant : Mr. Kaushalendra Prasad, Advocate : Mr. Binod Kr. Mallah, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, A.P.P. -------- J U D G M E N T CAV On: 5th May, 2026 Pronounced On: 09/06/2026 1. Heard Mr. Kaushalendra Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, learned A.P.P. 2. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27.08.2008 & 28.08.2008 respectively, passed in Sessions Case No. 213 of 2007 by the learned 5th Addl. Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.), Dumka, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offences under Section 326 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I for 3 years alongwith the fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation. Factual Matrix:- 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 01.01.2007 at about 4:30 P.M., when the informant alongwith with his 2 (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1220 of 2008) friends were returning from river side after picnic and reached in front of the house of village pradhan, it is alleged that the appellant Para Kewat alongwith co-accused persons, namely, Shishu Kewat and Gunia Kewat started arguing with them that no Koeri caste will live in the village and started abusing them. In the meantime, when father of the informant namely Kishan Baidh (PW-6) came there and tried to pacify the situation, then the present appellant Para Kewat by using Gulail assaulted on left eye of his father resulting in grievous injury in his left eye. It is further alleged that co-accused Shishu and Gunia Kewat have assaulted by legs and fists. Thereafter, villagers reached there and pacify the situation. Atul Baidh village Pradhan and villagers are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. 4. On the basis of written information, police registered F.I.R. being Kathikund P.S. Case No. 01 of 2007 for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 307 & 504/34 of the I.P.C. 5. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and co-accused persons for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 326, 307 & 504/34 of I.P.C and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions, where Sessions Case No. 213 of 2007 was registered and charges were framed under Sections 307/34, 341/34 & 504/34 of the I.P.C. 6. The accused persons denied the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of trial, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence has been passed against the present appellant, which has been assailed in this appeal. 3 (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1220 of 2008) 7. However, the learned Trial Court has not found guilty to co- accused, namely Shishu Kewat and Gunia Kewat and acquitted them from all charges extending them benefit of doubt. Submissions on behalf of the appellant:- 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that written report has not been proved by the prosecution. One of the I.O. (Investigating Officer), namely, Sunit Kumar has also not been examined. Atul Baidh village Pradhan, who happens to be present at the time of occurrence, has not been examined. It is further submitted that the injured has not given any statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and for the first time, he has deposed in the Court. There is no injury slip available on record to prove that the I.O. has sent Kisan Baidh to the doctor for treatment and the deposition of PW-7 Dr. Sitaram Sah who is private doctor, hence his report cannot be relied upon. It is the further submitted that it is the first offence of the appellant and in spite of that, considering the gravity of the offence, the learned Trial Court has declined to extend the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 without specifying any special reasons as mandated in the law. Hence, conviction and sentence of the appellant is not sustainable in law and fit to be set aside. The appellant is not habitual offender and since the occurrence is of the year 2007 and more than 19 years have elapsed, appellant deserves to be extended the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Submissions on behalf of the State:- 9. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has defended the impugned 4 (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1220 of 2008) judgment on merits and submitted that in the said occurrence, injured Kisan Baidh@ Krisna Baidh (PW-6) has sustained injuries on his left eye which also finds support from the deposition of PW-7 Dr. Sitaram Sah. The Injury report of the injured shows that his injury was grievous in nature. Therefore, the learned Trial Court has rightly declined to extend the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Hence, this appeal, being devoid of merit, is fit to be dismissed. Analysis, discussion and reasons:- 10. It appears that altogether Seven (07) witnesses have been examined by the prosecution: - P.W.-1 Mantu Baidh P.W.-2 Shambhu Manjhi P.W.-3 Ajit Baidh P.W.-4 Sachin Baidh (Informant) P.W.-5 Jai Prakash Toppo (Investigating Officer) P.W.-6 Kishan Baidh @ Krisna Baidh (Injured) P.W.-7 Dr. Sita Ram Sah Apart from oral evidence, following documentary evidences have also been adduced by the prosecution:- I. Exhibit-1 Signature of Sachin Baidh on written application II. Exhibit -1/1 Endorsement on written application III. Exhibit- 2 Formal F.I.R. IV. Exhibit- 3 Injury report 11. On the other hand, no witness has been examined on behalf of defence. 5 (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1220 of 2008) 12. Perused the record of the case alongwith the impugned judgment in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both the parties. It appears that in this case the genesis of the occurrence and dispute between the parties is due to argument on Koeri caste matter between the appellant alongwith co-accused persons and son of the injured. The injured (PW-6) had tried to pacify the matter but he got injury on his left eye by Gulail, which was found to be grievous in nature. The injury report of the injured person has also been proved by PW-7 Dr. Sitaram Sah. Therefore, the evidence of injured witnesses finds corroboration from the injury report. As such, I don’t find any illegality or infirmity in the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 326 of the I.P.C which is hereby upheld. 13. So far non-extension of the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act is concerned, it appears from the record that it was the first offence of the appellant and there were no materials showing his previous conviction for any offence. The learned Trial Court considering the gravity of the offence has declined to extend the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, genesis and manner of occurrence and considering that it was the first offence of the appellant, his age, antecedents and character, the appellant deserves the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 15. In view of the above, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence to the extent that instead of undergoing 6 (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1220 of 2008) substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant by the learned Trial Court, the appellant is hereby directed to be released on furnishing bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 within three 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. 16. If the bond is not furnished within above stipulated time, the learned Trial Court shall issue notice upon the appellant to secure his attendance for furnishing the bond. 17. It is further directed to the appellant to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation to the injured/victim, namely, Kishan Baidh @ Krisna Baidh or his dependents at the time of furnishing bond, which shall be paid before the concerned Trial Court and the learned Trial Court, after proper verification, shall hand over the same amount to the injured/victim or his dependents. 18. In case of violation of terms and conditions of the bond and compensation amount, the appellant shall be called upon to receive the sentence already awarded to him. 19. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly. 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.) Jharkhand High Court Dated: 09.06.2026 Rahul / NAFR- Uploaded on 11/06/2026