2026:JHHC:19139 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1061 of 2008 --------- 1. Devendra Mandal, son of Late Jhupar Mandal 2. Jaikishore Mandal, son of Late Jhupar Mandal Both residents of Mathakeso, Post Offoce and Police Station- Saraiyahat, District-Dumka. … … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand …. Respondent --------- For the Appellants : Mr. Bhupal Krishna Prasad, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P. ----------- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT ---------- Dated: 30th June, 2026 1. Heard Mr. Bhupal Krishna Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants and learned Spl.P.P. 2. A supplementary affidavit has been filed along with death certificate of appellant No.3, Jogendar Mandal, son of Late Umesh Mandal, who died on 06.06.2020. No substitution application has been filed on his behalf. Therefore, appeal preferred on behalf of the appellant No.3, Yogendar Mandal stands abated. This appeal is heard on behalf of the aforesaid alive appellants, namely, Devendra Mandal and Jaikishore Mandal respectively. 3. Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 25.07.2008 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Dumka in Sessions Case No.67 of 2007 arising out of Saraiyahat P.S. Case No.49 of 2006, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for the offences under sections 324, 341 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo 2026:JHHC:19139 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1061 of 2008 2 R.I. for 2 years each for the offence under section 324/34 of IPC. However, no separate sentence has been passed under section 341/34 of IPC. Factual Matrix:- 4. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 13.03.2006, the informant after returning from Dumka by his vehicle and to ease himself, he went towards east of his house near the pond. At about 7:30 pm, he reached near the hand-pump in front of the house of Krishna Mandal, meanwhile, the accused, Devendar Mandal, Jogendar Mandal (since deceased) and Jaikishore Mandal armed with lathi and iron rods surrounded him and assaulted him as a result of which, he sustained head injury and injuries on his both hands and back. On hearing hulla, the brother of informant, Gangadhar Mandal rushed towards the place of occurrence, and he was also assaulted by the above accused persons and sustained head and shoulder injuries. The motive behind of the dispute was a heated exchange of words between the father of the informant and accused, Devendar Mandal, over the matter of appointing a para-teacher in the village school. 5. On the basis of written report of the informant, Saraiyahat P.S. Case No.49 of 2006 was instituted for the offences under sections 341, 323, 307, 34 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 where Sessions Case No.67 of 2026:JHHC:19139 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1061 of 2008 3 2007 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. 6. Prosecution has examined altogether 9 witnesses in this case namely: P.W.1-Gangadhar Mandal P.W.2-Indradeo Mandal P.W.3-Sahdeo Hajra P.W.4-Pairu Mandal P.W.5-Balram Mandal P.W.6-Pramod Mandal P.W.7-Nirmal Mandal (informant) P.W.8-Dr. Shahbaj Alam P.W.9-Mantu Chandra Tiwari (advocate clerk) 7. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, following documentary evidence has been adduced by the prosecution i.e. Ext.1-Written application Ext.1/1-Signature of Nirmal Mandal on the written application Ext.2 and 2/1 -Injury report Ext.3-Formal FIR 2026:JHHC:19139 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1061 of 2008 4 8. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. The case of defence is denial from the occurrence and false implication. Submission on behalf of appellants:- 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that admittedly the motive behind the occurrence as alleged in the FIR itself is that there was a hot exchange of words between the father of the informant and Devendar Mandal in the matter of appointment of para-teacher in the village school. The occurrence took place in a sudden manner where two persons sustained simple injuries caused by sharp-cut weapon. It is further submitted that although the appellants have been charged for the offence under section 307/34 of IPC but ultimately held guilt for the offence under sections 324 and 341 r/w 34 IPC. It is further submitted that the case of prosecution is also corroborated by the injury report of the injured persons and substantive evidence of the accused persons corroborated by their respective injury report proved during trial by the concerned doctor (P.W.8). Therefore, the appellants without touching the merits of the judgment has confined themselves to the point of non- extension the benefit of section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to which they deserve. It is further submitted that learned trial court itself, at the time of hearing on the point of sentence, has mentioned categorically that it was the first offence of the appellants and there is nothing on record to show their criminal antecedent. But learned trial 2026:JHHC:19139 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1061 of 2008 5 court without recording any special reasons for not extending the benefit of section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act as mandate under law, has declined to extend the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, to which they deserve. Therefore, the appellant may be released on probation bond under section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. Submission on behalf of the State:- 10. On the other hand, learned Spl. 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:- 11. I have gone through the impugned judgment of the court below in the light of rival contentions of the respective parties. 12. It appears that P.W.8, Dr. Shahbaj Alam has examined the injured, Gangadhar Mandal and found following injury on his person:- (1) Scalp lacerated injury 3” x 2” (2) Abrasion on the back cervical region 1” x 1” The injured was referred to Sadar Hospital for X-ray of skull and abdomen but nothing was detected abnormal and the injuries were found simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. This witness has also examined the injured-cum-informant, Nirmal Mandal and found following injury on his person:- 2026:JHHC:19139 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1061 of 2008 6 (1) Left scalp lacerated wound 2” x 2” (2) Abrasion left elbow 2” x 1” (3) Right elbow abrasion 2” x 2” (4) Cervical region back abrasion 2” x 1” The injured was referred to Sadar Hospital for X-ray of skull, both elbows and chest but nothing has been detected abnormal and the injuries were opined to be simple in nature caused by force of hard and blunt object. Both the injury reports were marked as Ext.2 and 2/1 13. In the instant case, it appears that the dispute broke out between the parties due to appointment of para-teacher in the village school as a result of which the informant, Nirmal Mandal and his brother, Gangadhar Mandal received injuries on their person. From the injury report, it appears that the injuries were found to be simple in nature. It further appears that the occurrence is of the year 2006 and about two decades have passed. However, the appellants have taken plea that it was their first offence but they have been denied from the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 without recording any special reasons by the trial court, to which they are entitled. 14. 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 2026:JHHC:19139 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1061 of 2008 7 appellants appear to be entitled, instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment. 15. 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.5,000/- (Rupees five 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. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly. 19. 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 30/06/2026 Pappu/- N.A.F.R. Uploaded on 03 /07/2026