2026:JHHC:20597 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 741 of 2007 [Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 26.04.2007, passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Dumka in Sessions Case No. 343 of 2004] 1. Ibrahim Mian, Son of Juman Mian. 2. Saleem Mian, Son of Juman Mian. 3. Karamat Mian, Son of Rabi Mian. All resident of Village-Hat Dumaria, P.S. – Taljhari, District - Dumka. … … Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent ….. For the Appellants : Mr. Vishal Kumar Binay, Advocate Mr. Indu Shekhar Gupta, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, A.P.P. ….. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT Dated: 10th July, 2026 By Court:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.04.2007 passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Dumka, in Sessions Case No. 343 of 2004, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been held guilty for the offence under Sections 324/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years along with fine of Rs. 1,000/- each with default stipulation. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal as per fardbeyan of Samsuddin Mian (P.W.-8) recorded at 2026:JHHC:20597 2 about 11:30 A.M. at Hat Dumria Village by Sub- Inspector Anjani Kumar Jha is that on 05.06.2004 at about 9-9:30 A.M., Saleem Mian, Karamat Mian and Ibrahim Mian went to plough the field of Jamabandi No. 8 of Village Hat Dumria, which is under civil litigation and the informant side is in possession of the same. The informant went there along with his son Bhuto Mian to stop the accused from ploughing the field. Meanwhile, Karamat Mian assaulted him with lathi on his head causing bleeding injury. Thereafter, the informant fell down, then Ibrahim Mian assaulted him with lathi. Bhuto Mian went to save him then Saleem Mian assaulted him on his leg with lathi. The cause behind the occurrence is land dispute and the informant side went to stop the accused from ploughing the field. 4. On the basis of fardbeyan of informant, FIR being Jarmundi (T) P.S. Case No. 104 of 2004 was registered against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 325, 307/34 of the I.P.C. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons under the aforesaid sections. After taking cognizance of the offence, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions; where Sessions Case No. 343 of 2004 was registered. Thereafter, vide order dated 2026:JHHC:20597 3 07.04.2005, charge under Section 307/34 was framed against the accused persons and the contents of charge was read over and explained to accused, 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 evidence has been adduced on behalf of the defence. However, certified copy of F.I.R. i.e. Jarmundi P.S. Case No. 103 of 2004 has been adduced as Exhibit-A. 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 non-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. 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. 2026:JHHC:20597 4 Hence, appellants deserve the benefit of extension of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 9. On the other hand, learned A.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 impugned judgment that the place of occurrence was proved as disputed land of Jamabandi No. 8, which was ploughed by the accused persons and when the informant side went to stop them from doing so, the occurrence took place and persons from both side sustained injuries. They were treated in Hospital. For the same occurrence, there is case and counter case. The doctor has not opined any definite opinion. The occurrence is of the year 2004 and more than two decades have passed and the appellants have sufficiently been punished for their guilt. From perusal of impugned judgment, it also 2026:JHHC:20597 5 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 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 2026:JHHC:20597 6 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: 10th July, 2026. Sunil/-NAFR Uploaded On 15/07/2026