2026:JHHC:21576 Cr. Rev. No. 620 of 2010 Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 620 of 2010 …… 1. Bal Ram Mahto Son of Late Chandradeo Mahto 2. Lakhan Mahto Son of Late Chandradeo Mahto 3. Sachida Mahto @ Sachita Mahto @ Sachita Nand Mahto Son of Late Chandradeo Mahto All resident of village – Matunga, P.S. – Manatu, Distt. - Palamau. … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Jalbansh Mahto, Son of Late Sewan Mahto, resident of Village – Mantunga, P.O. & P.S. – Manatu, District – Palamu … Opp. Parties …… For the Petitioners : Mrs. Rakhi Rani, Adv. For the State : Mrs. Malsi Pathak, A.C. to P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Manoj Kumar-II, Adv. …… P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA …… ORDER C.A.V. on 29.06.2026 Pronounced on 20.07.2026 1. Heard the arguments advanced by Mrs. Rakhi Rani, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mrs. Malsi Pathak, learned A.C. to P.P. appearing for the State assisted by Mr. Manoj Kumar-II, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2. 2. Instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 25.08.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 2003, 2026:JHHC:21576 Cr. Rev. No. 620 of 2010 Page | 2 whereby and whereunder learned Sessions Judge had modified the sentence passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Daltonganj in G.R. Case No.777 of 1998 arising out of Manatu P.S. Case No.25 of 1998, whereby the petitioner along with other co-accused persons were held guilty on 21.07.2003 for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 325 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo S.I. for one month, R.I. for one year and R.I. for three years along with fine of Rs.500/- each respectively for the aforesaid offences where all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The learned Appellate Court in Cr. Appeal No. 76 of 2003 dismissed the appeal, modifying the sentence to the extent of S.I. for six months for the offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C., R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 325 of the I.P.C. without changing the sentence for the offence under Section 341 of the I.P.C. 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that on 04.07.1998 at about 08:00 p.m., the informant Jalbansh Mahto along with his wife was returning to his home, all the appellants surrounded them in the lane and he would not be permitted to go through that lane then the informant told that the said lane is the joint lane of his family, they all caught 2026:JHHC:21576 Cr. Rev. No. 620 of 2010 Page | 3 hold of them and hurling abuses brutally assaulted him and his wife. The informant was restrained by the appellants to go to the Police to inform the incident and, therefore, the informant lodged his fardbeyan on 08.07.1998. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, Manatu P.S. Case No. 25 of 1998 was registered for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 504/34 of the I.P.C. 4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Judicial Magistrate for trial. Charges were framed against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 323/349, 325/34, 341 and 504/34 of the I.P.C. which were read over and explained to them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In the course of trial, altogether five witnesses were examined by the prosecution and following documentary evidence were also adduced:- Exhibit 1 & 2 : Injury reports of Jalbansh Mahto and his wife Sushila Devi Exhibit 3 & 3/1 : Signature of Sushila Devi and informant on fardbeyan 2026:JHHC:21576 Cr. Rev. No. 620 of 2010 Page | 4 6. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. 7. Learned Trial Court held the petitioners guilty for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 325 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced as stated above which has been modified by the learned Appellate Court as mentioned above and assailed in this revision. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there are material discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of injured witnesses as regards manner of assault and weapon used in the alleged offence. Both, the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court has committed serious error of law in proper appreciating the evidence of ocular witnesses in the light of injury reports of the injured persons and arrived at wrong conclusion. Therefore, impugned judgments of conviction and sentence of the petitioners are liable to be set aside. In the alternative, it is submitted that admittedly, it was first offence of the petitioners as is mentioned in the impugned judgment at the time of hearing on the point of sentence. Considering the nature of injury sustained by the informant and the core dispute between the parties without 2026:JHHC:21576 Cr. Rev. No. 620 of 2010 Page | 5 assigning any special reasons, the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court has declined to extend the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioners to which they deserve instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment as granted by the learned Court below. 9. On the other hand, learned A.C to P.P. appearing for the State as well as learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No.2 have vehemently opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners and submitted that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court regarding guilt of the petitioners. They have been awarded minimum sentence as prescribed under law. On the point of giving the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, they have fairly admitted that it was first offence of the appellants and there was no material on record to establish their previous conviction, therefore, in the interest of justice, effect order can be passed. 10. I have gone through the impugned judgments passed by learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court 2026:JHHC:21576 Cr. Rev. No. 620 of 2010 Page | 6 along with the record of the case in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side. 11. The only point for consideration is that as to "whether the impugned judgments passed by learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court suffers from any serious error of law calling for any interference in this revision ?" 12. It appears that informant and his wife were assaulted and the informant has got a fracture injury on 8th left rib at its middle caused by hard and blunt substance and his wife has got simple injuries caused by hard and blunt substance. There are minor discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses which is bound to happen in case of illiterate villagers which has been rightly considered by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court. Therefore, I do not find any merits in the findings of conviction of the petitioners for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 325 of the I.P.C. calling for any interference. 13. So far as non-extension of the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act is concerned, it appears that both the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court in spite of the pleading of the petitioners that it was their first offence and they have never been convicted for any offence 2026:JHHC:21576 Cr. Rev. No. 620 of 2010 Page | 7 prior to occurrence and are young persons declined to extend the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The incident was of the year 1998 and more than two and a half decades have been elapsed since the date of commission of offence. It is also pleaded that the petitioners in the aforesaid period have also maintained peace and harmony and have never been involved in any other criminal activities. 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of offence committed by the petitioners, the genesis and manner of occurrence, age, antecedent and character of the petitioners, it is expedient in the ends of justice to extend the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the petitioners, for which the petitioners appear to be entitled, instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment. 15. In view of the above, this criminal 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 learned Trial Court and modified by the learned Appellate Court, the petitioners are hereby directed to be released on furnishing bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) each with one surety of 2026:JHHC:21576 Cr. Rev. No. 620 of 2010 Page | 8 like amount each 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 their attendance for furnishing the bond. 17. In case of violation of terms and conditions of the bond, the learned Trial Court shall call upon the petitioners to serve the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to them. 18. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. 19. Let a copy of this order along with Trial Court record be sent back immediately to the concerned Court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 20/07/2026 Sachin / NAFR Uploaded On: 22/07/2026