2026:JHHC:17489 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 449 of 2008 [Against the Judgment of conviction dated 22.02.2008 and Order of sentence dated 06.03.2008, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Simdega in Sessions Trial No. 54 of 2004] 1. Bhushan Yadav @ Shashi Bhushan Biritia. 2. Vijay Yadav @ Juje. Both are sons of Jaidhar Yadav @ Jaidhar Biritia, Residents of Sarkhutoli, Police Station – Simdega, District - Simdega. 3. Parmeshwar Yadav, son of Late Ram Yadav, Resident of Village-Sarar, Police Station – Kurdeg, District - Simdega. … … Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent ….. For the Appellants : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P. ….. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT Dated: 12th June, 2026 By Court:- Heard Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl.P.P. for the State. 2. The present Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 22.02.2008 and order of sentence dated 06.03.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Simdega, in Sessions Trial No. 54 of 2004, whereby and whereunder, the appellant no. 3 Parmeshwar Yadav has been held guilty for the offence under Sections 148, 323/149, 324/149 and 452/149 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years 2026:JHHC:17489 2 as a consolidated sentence for the aforesaid charges. The appellant no.1 Bhushan Yadav and appellant no. 2 Vijay Yadav have been held guilty for the offence under Sections 147, 323/149, 324/149 and 452/149 of the I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years as a consolidated sentence thereunder. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 19.08.2003 at 4:00 A.M. morning the accused Parmeshwar Yadav armed with Balua along with accused Bhushan Yadav, Vijay Yadav and other four unknown persons armed with pistol, lathi, tangi, gupti entered into the house of Hari Yadav @ Gaslu Yadav, who is father of the informant by cutting the lock of the main door and assaulted Balmati Devi, aunty of the informant by lathi and broke her left leg and also caused injury on her left hand near thumb by balua. The other female Parvati Devi and Usha Devi were also assaulted by lathi causing serious injuries. Dahimati Devi, grandmother of the informant was also assaulted by lathi. One Dulari Kumar, sister of the informant and Kalawati Kumar, cousin sister of the informant have also been assaulted by accused persons by danda, but they have not sustained serious injuries. As per informant, the cause of occurrence is that on 02.08.2003 Sri Ram Yadav, 2026:JHHC:17489 3 father of the accused Parmeshwar Yadav was murdered, in which, Liladhar Yadav and Sudhan Yadav, uncle of the informant were named as accused and lodged in jail and in revenge, the accused persons have committed the said occurrence. 4. On the basis of written report of informant, FIR being Kurdeg P.S. Case No. 27 of 2003 was registered against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 324, 325, 307/34 of the I.P.C. After completion of investigation, original charge sheet was submitted against the accused Bhushan Yadav @ Shashi Bhushan Britiya for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 324, 325, 307/34 of the I.P.C. After taking cognizance of the offence, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions; where S.T. No. 54 of 2004 was registered. However, the second supplementary charge sheet has also been submitted in this case against two accused persons namely, Parmeshwar Yadav and Vijay Yadav @ Juje Yadav for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 324, 325, 307 of the I.P.C. and cognizance was also taken against them and their case was committed to the court of sessions, where S.T. No. 61 of 2004 was registered, which stands amalgamated with the record of the original S.T. No. 54 of 2004 and since then all 2026:JHHC:17489 4 the three accused persons facing trial in this case. The accused Bhushan Yadav @ Shashi Bhushan Britiya and Bijay Yadav @ Juje Yadav charged jointly for the offence under Sections 147, 452, 323, 307/34 of the I.P.C. and the accused Parmeshwar Yadav separately charged for the offence under Sections 148, 452, 323 and 307 of the I.P.C. and the same was read over and explained to them, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined altogether 10 witnesses and also adduced several documentary evidences. 6. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the defence. 7. After conclusion of trial, the learned trial court, after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, has convicted and sentenced the appellants, as stated above, which is assailed in this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants, without touching the merits of the case, has confined himself on the point of extension of benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the appellants. It is submitted that it was first offence of the appellants and they have never been convicted in another case. 2026:JHHC:17489 5 The plea of first offender and extension of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 was raised before the learned Trial Court, but the learned trial court without recording any special reason has declined the same. Hence, appellants deserve the benefit of extension of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 9. On the other hand, learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and defended the impugned judgment and order on merits. So far extension of benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is concerned, it is fairly submitted that it was first offence of the appellants and there is no previous criminal antecedent against the appellants. 10. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both the parties. 11. It appears from the evidence of witnesses that the all the four injured were sustained simple injury except one Balmati Devi (P.W.-2), who sustained grievous injury on left leg, which became fractured, which is not on the vital part of the body. The occurrence is of the year 2003 and more than two decades have passed and the appellants have sufficiently been 2026:JHHC:17489 6 punished for their guilt. From perusal of impugned judgment, it appears that the defence has taken plea that there is no previous conviction or criminal antecedent against the appellants and this is the first offence, for which the convicts found guilty, which has not been denied by the prosecution. It also appears from perusal of impugned order that plea of first offender and extension of benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 has been declined by the learned trial court without recording any special reasons. 12. 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 they appear to be entitled, instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment. 13. 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 is hereby directed to be released on furnishing bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees 2026:JHHC:17489 7 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 one year from the date of furnishing the bond. 14. 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. 15. In case of violation of terms and conditions of the bond, the appellants shall be called upon to receive the sentences already awarded to them. 16. Pending I.A. if any stands disposed of. 17. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to the court concerned immediately for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi. Dated: 12th June, 2026. Sunil/-NAFR Uploaded On 19/06/2026