2026:JHHC:18584 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.627 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 627 of 2009 --------- 1. Kamta Yadav, son of Sri Ram Barat Yadav 2. Jadunandan Yadav @ Yadunandan Yadav, son of Late Thanu Yadav 3. Binda Yadav, son of Late Jagu Yadav 4. Mahendra Yadav, son of Sri Bal Govind Yadav All residents of Bardangal Garikhana, P.O.-Kumardhubi, P.S.- Chirkunda, District-Dhanbad … … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand …. Respondent --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ---------- For the Appellants : Mrs. Jasvinder Mazumdar, Advocate Mr. Aniket Jaiswal, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. ----------- Dated: 24th June, 2026 1. Heard Mrs. Jasvinder Mazumdar, learned counsel for the appellants and learned P.P. 2. Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.06.2009 passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No.166 of 2002 arising out of Chirkunda P.S. Case No.40 of 1991 corresponding to G.R. No.640 of 1991, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for the offences under sections 148, 323 and 452 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years each for the offence under section 148 of IPC, R.I. for 1 year each for the offence under section 323 of IPC, R.I. for 3 years each for the offence under section 452 of IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2026:JHHC:18584 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.627 of 2009 2 Factual Matrix:- 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 01.03.1991 at about 3:30 pm, while the informant was at his shop, 15-20 persons came to his shop and took away abir and colour without paying money. Upon demand of money, they pulled out support danda from the shop-shed resulting in damage to the colours, eggs and jar of chocolate. On protest raised by the informant, they assaulted him with danda. Thereafter, the informant along with his father and brother were going to the police station to report the incident, then accused persons armed with lathi, gun and bomb entered into the house of the informant and assaulted his bhabhi, Maya Gorain and broke her hand. The accused persons also assaulted Uttam Kumar Day and Narayan Gorain and caused head injuries to Narayan Gorain. It is further alleged that some of the accused persons came to the shop of Bhaktipada Gorain and committed mischief by throwing away cashbox, scales, rice, pulse and other articles of the shop and assaulted him. Accused, Mahendra Yadav, Ram Brichha Yadav, Raghunandan Yadav, Bindua Yadav, Jagu Nanda Yadav and his younger brother have assaulted the brother of the informant. 4. On the basis of fardbayan of the information, Chirkunda P.S. Case No.40 of 1991 was instituted for the offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 427, 452 and 325 of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions 2026:JHHC:18584 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.627 of 2009 3 where Sessions Trial No.166 of 2002 was registered. The appellants have denied the charges leveled against them and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of the trial, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants was passed, which has been assailed in this appeal. 5. Prosecution has examined altogether 7 witnesses in this case namely: P.W.1-Uttam Kumar Dey P.W.2-Narayan Gorain P.W.3-Deepak Gorain P.W.4-Maya Rani Gorain P.W.5-Swapan Kumar Dey P.W.6-Binod Chandra Dey P.W.7-Robin Gorain (injured-informant) 6. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, one documentary evidence i.e. Ext.1-Fardbeyan has been adduced by the prosecution. 7. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defense. The case of defence is denial from the occurrence and false implication. Submission on behalf of appellants:- 8. Learned counsel for the appellants without touching the merits of the judgment has confined himself to the point of non-extension the benefit of section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the appellants to 2026:JHHC:18584 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.627 of 2009 4 which they deserve. It is further submitted that the case is of the year, 1991 and the dispute arose between the parties on the question of taking abir and colors by the appellants without paying money. However, nothing has been brought on record to substantiate the allegation of injuries caused by the accused persons. It is further submitted that the trial was conducted in absence of any necessary papers like case diary, injury report etc. Due to being old case, the documents were destroyed. Moreover, it is the first offence of the appellants and they have never been convicted in any other case. Hence, the appellants deserve the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. Submission on behalf of the State:- 9. On the other hand, learned P.P. has defended the judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants on merits but so far extending the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act is concerned, it is fairly admitted that it was the first offence of the appellants, hence, they deserve the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. Analysis, Reasons and Decision:- 10. I have given anxious consideration to the genesis, manner and place of occurrence. Since, learned counsel for the appellants has argued this case without touching its merits but from the record, it appears that the dispute arose out between the parties on account of taking abir and colors from the shop of the informant without paying money. It appears 2026:JHHC:18584 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.627 of 2009 5 that the trial was conducted in absence of case diary, injury report and other relevant documents. The occurrence is of the year 1991 and more than three decades have passed. The trial court had denied the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 without recording any special reasons, to which the appellants are entitled. 11. 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 the appellants appear to be entitled, instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment. 12. 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 are hereby directed to be released on furnishing bond of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four Thousands) 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. 2026:JHHC:18584 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.627 of 2009 6 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly. 16. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record be sent back immediately to the concerned trial court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi 24/06/2026 Pappu/- N.A.F.R. Uploaded On 25 /06/2026