2026:JHHC:16872 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 206 of 2016 -------- 1. Dashrath Mahto, S/o. Dwarika Mahto. 2. Ravi Mahto, S/o. Dashrath Mahto. Both are R/o. Vill.- Solay, Tola- Banjara, P.O. & P.S.- Patan, Dist.- Palamau, Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Opp. Parties -------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Mantra Narayant Thakur, Advocate : Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P. Order No. 15/ Dated: 11th June, 2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned A.P.P. 2. Instant Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment dated 23.01.2016 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-VI, Palamau at Daltonganj in Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 2013, whereby and whereunder the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.12.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Palamau at Daltonganj in G.R. Case No. 1545 of 2005 / T.R. No. 139 of 2012, whereby and whereunder the petitioners have been held guilty for the offences under Sections 323, 341 & 504/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo one month S.I. each under Section 341 I.P.C., Six months S.I. each under Section 323 & 504 of the I.P.C. and petitioner no. 1 was also held guilty for the offence under Section 325 of the I.P.C. and was directed to undergo S.I. for one year 2026:JHHC:9653 2 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 206 of 2016) alongwith fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Factual Matrix:- 2. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of written report of Sheo Pujan Mahto alleging therein that on 04.10.2005 at about 8:00 A.M., he had gone to irrigate his radish field. In the meantime, Dashrath Mahto (petitioner no. 1), his son Ravi Mahto (petitioner no. 2) and Guddu Mahto prevented him from irrigating the field and also abused him. They caught hold of the informant and started assaulting him with a lathi. He fell down on the earth and due to assault by lathi, his right hand got fractured. Somehow, he fled away from the occurrence and saved his life. 3. On the basis of above written report of the informant, F.I.R. was instituted being Patan P.S. Case No. 126 of 2005 for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 325 & 504 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons. 4. After investigation, the police submitted its charge-sheet and charges were framed against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 323/34, 341/34, 325/34 & 504/34 of the I.P.C. on 03.04.2006. 5. Charges were read over in Hindi and explained to them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. The learned trial court after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution and after hearing the parties, found the petitioners guilty for the offence under Sections 323/34, 341/34 & 504/34 of the I.P.C and petitioner no. 1 was also 2026:JHHC:9653 3 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 206 of 2016) held guilty for the offence under Section 325 of the I.P.C. and sentenced them accordingly. 7. Against the above judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioners preferred an appeal bearing Cr. Appeal No. 01 of 2013, wherein the learned Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court. In the instant revision, the petitioners have challenged the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 2013. 8. In the Course of Trial, prosecution has examined altogether five witnesses. Apart from the oral evidence, following documentary evidence has been adduced by the prosecution:- I. Ext. 1- Signature of informant Sheo Pujan Mahto on the written report. II. Ext. 2- Injury report. III. Ext. 3- C/c of Judgment of Complaint Case 303 of 2005. Submissions on behalf of the Petitioners:- 9. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners without entering into the merits of the judgment has confined himself towards the quantum of sentences awarded to petitioners. It is further submitted that there was some scuffle and dispute before the occurrence between the parties and the occurrence took place in a sudden manner. In the course of scuffle, a lathi blow was given to the informant due to which, his hand got fractured. It is admitted fact that it was the first conviction of the petitioners. It is further submitted that no previous offence has been attributed against them. The learned Trial Court has failed to record any special reasons in declining from granting benefit 2026:JHHC:9653 4 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 206 of 2016) of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The learned Trial Court has stated that if substantive sentence of imprisonment is not awarded to the petitioners, wrong message would be spread in the society, which is not justified by the law and in view of aims and object of Probation of Offenders Act for which was enacted, i.e., the prime objective of reformation theory of the first offenders. Therefore, the petitioners deserve the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Submissions on behalf of the State:- 10. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has defended the impugned judgment on merits, but so far extending the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act is concerned, he has fairly admitted that from the impugned judgment, it appears that it was the first offence of the petitioner. It is further submitted that there is concurrent finding of guilt of the petitioners recorded by the Court below. Therefore, the revision is fit to be dismissed, but so far first offence of the petitioners is concerned, in the factual aspect of the case, appropriate order may be passed. Analysis, discussion and reasons:- 11. I have gone through the record of the case alongwith the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court as well as by the learned Appellate Court. 12. It appears that there is concurrent finding of both the courts below that the prosecution has been successfully able to establish the guilt of the petitioner Dashrath Mahto for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the I.P.C. and both the petitioners for the offence 2026:JHHC:9653 5 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 206 of 2016) punishable under Section 323/34, 341/34 & 504/34 of the I.P.C. PW-5 Dr. Dilip Kumar Singh had examined the informant Sheo Pujan Mahto and found that there was swelling 4" x 2" on right forearm which showed fracture of middle ulna. The nature of injury was grievous caused by hard and blunt object. The oral testimony of PW-1 to PW-4 has also been corroborated by the evidence of PW-5. They have also corroborated the manner of occurrence and place of occurrence. The finding of fact of the court below appears to be correct legal and proper, requiring no interference on merits by way of this revision. 13. So far non-extension of the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation Officers Act is concerned, it appears from the record that the learned Trial Court has declined the benefit just stating that wrong message would go in the society which not justified in the eye of law. The petitioners are found to be a man of good character and there is no materials showing their 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 also considering that it was the first offence of the petitioners, their age, antecedents and character, the petitioners deserve the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 15. In view of the above, this revision is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence to the extent that instead of undergoing substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioners by 2026:JHHC:9653 6 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 206 of 2016) the learned Trial Court, the petitioners are hereby directed to be released on furnishing bonds 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 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 petitioners to secure his attendance for furnishing the bonds. 17. In case of violation of terms and conditions of the bond, the petitioners shall be called upon to receive the sentence already awarded to them. 18. In view of above discussion and reason, impugned judgment of the Court below is upheld on merits but with modification in sentence to the extent mentioned above. 19. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed on merits with modification in the sentence. 20. Let a copy of this order alongwith trial court records be sent back to the concerned court immediately for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Dated: 11.06.2026 Rahul-NAFR Uploaded on 19/06/2026