2026:JHHC:16575 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.542 of 2009 Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.542 of 2009 …… [Against the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence dated 28.05.2009, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Palamau at Daltonganj in Sessions Trial Case No.118 of 2006] …… 1. Amar Singh Son of Late Jagdish Singh 2. Kamli Devi Wife of Amar Singh, Both resident of Village Saraidih Tola Rajhar P.S. Panki District Palamau (Jharkhand). … Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand … Respondent ------ For the Appellants : Mr. Surendra Prasad Sinha, Adv. Mr. Brij Mohan Mishra, Adv. For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P. ------ P R E S E N T Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT Dated - 09.06.2026 By Court:- Heard Mr. Surendra Prasad Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, 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 28.05.2009 passed by learned Additional 2026:JHHC:16575 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.542 of 2009 Page | 2 Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Palamau at Daltonganj in Sessions Trial Case No.118 of 2006, whereby and whereunder the appellant No.1 Amar Singh has been held guilty for the offence under Section 325 and 341 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years along with fine of Rs.1,000/- and S.I. for one month for the offence under Section 341 of the I.P.C. with default stipulation. Appellant No.2 Kamli Devi has been held guilty under Section 323 and 341 of the I.P.C. Convict Kamli Devi (appellant No.2) was granted benefit of Probation of Offenders Act by learned Trial Court and has been released by entering into a bond of Rs.1,000/- to maintain peace for a period of one year. 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal as emerging from the fardbeyan of the informant Raj Deo Singh recorded on 18/19.07.2004 at 00:15 hours at the Government Hospital, Panki, is that on 18.07.2004, while the informant was sitting in the courtyard of his house, the wife of accused Amar Singh started abusing him without any provocation. Upon objecting by the informant, accused Amar Singh allegedly arrived armed with a spade (kudal), while co-accused Kamli Devi and Somar Singh came armed with lathis. It is alleged that 2026:JHHC:16575 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.542 of 2009 Page | 3 Amar Singh assaulted the informant with the spade on the left side of his head, causing a bleeding injury on his forehead and thereafter inflicted another blow on his left wrist, resulting in further injury. It is further alleged that Kamli Devi instigated Amar Singh to continue the assault and actively participated in the occurrence. Kamli Devi and Somar Singh also caught hold of the informant and assaulted him with fists and slaps. The injured informant was thereafter taken to the Government Hospital, Panki, by his brother Annadev and wife Kanti Devi, where he received medical treatment. On the basis of above fardbeyan, Panki P.S. Case No.42 of 2004 was registered for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 307, 506/34 of the I.P.C. 4. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants for the aforesaid offences and accordingly, cognizance was taken and subsequently, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed under Sections 341, 506, 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:16575 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.542 of 2009 Page | 4 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 or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. 7. After conclusion of trial, impugned judgment and order has been passed which has been assailed in this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant No.1 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 to the appellant No.1. It is further submitted that there was dispute about partition of landed property between informant and the appellant No.1, who happens to be the real brother of his own. In the course of involvement, the appellant No.1 has been held guilty for the offence under Section 325 of the I.P.C. It is further submitted that the evidence of injured has been corroborated by his medical injury report, therefore, there is no dispute about the justification for conviction of the appellant No.1 for the offences under Sections 325 and 341 of the I.P.C. but the learned Trial Court has declined to extend 2026:JHHC:16575 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.542 of 2009 Page | 5 the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the appellant No.1 while appellant No.2 was released on probation bond instead of awarding any substantive sentence of imprisonment. The prosecution has not been able to brought on record any criminal history or previous conviction of the appellant No.1, therefore, the appellant No.1 is also entitled for the 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 was first offence of the appellant and there was no material on record to establish his previous conviction, 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. 2026:JHHC:16575 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.542 of 2009 Page | 6 11. It appears that plea of first offence and no other previous conviction taken by appellant No.1 at the time of hearing on quantum of sentence, has been rejected by learned Trial Court only on the ground of serious injury caused by appellant No.1. One of the female accused namely Kamli Devi (appellant No.2) 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 appellant No.1 has never been previously convicted for any other offence. The incident was of the year 2004 and more than two decades have been passed since the date of commission of offence. It is also pleaded that the appellant No.1 in the aforesaid period have also maintained peace and harmony and has never been involved in any other criminal activities. I find that the appellant No.1 also deserves 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:16575 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.542 of 2009 Page | 7 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of offence committed by the appellant No.1, the genesis and manner of occurrence, age, antecedent and character of the appellant No.1, 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 No.1 also, for which the appellant No.1 appears to be entitled, instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment. Since, the appellant No.2 namely Kamli 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 No.1 by learned Trial Court, the appellant No.1 is 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 maintaining peace and be of good behavior for six months from the date of furnishing the bond. 2026:JHHC:16575 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.542 of 2009 Page | 8 15. If the bond is not furnished within above stipulated time, the learned Trial Court shall issue notice upon the appellant No.1 to secure his 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 No.1 to serve the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to him. 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: 09/06/2026 Sachin / NAFR Uploaded On: 15/06/2026