2026:JHHC:21972 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1508 of 2005 ------ 1. Hiralal Sharma, 2. Moti Lal Sharma, Both sons of Late Firangi Sharma 3. Sumitra Devi, wife of Hiralal Sharma, 4. Muni Devi, Wife of Motilal Sharma, All residents of Namda Basti, Anand Nagar, P.S.-Golmuri, Town-Jamshedpur, Dist. East Singhbhum … .... …. Appellants Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Amarnath Giri, S/o Ram Nath Giri, R/o Not Known, P.S. Golmuri, Dist. Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum ... ..... .... Respondents ------ For the Appellants : Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Advocate For the Resp. State : Mr. Naveen Kumar Ganjhu, APP CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT Dated: 24th July, 2026 By Court:- 1. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and learned APP. 2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 28.11.2005 passed in S.T. No. 241 of 1998 by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC-VI, Jamshedpur, whereby and whereunder, the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 have been convicted and sentenced S.I. for 1 year for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC along with a fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation and appellant Nos. 3 and 4 have been convicted under Section 448 and 352 of the IPC and instead of sentence, they have been extended the benefit of Probation of 2026:JHHC:21972 Cr. A (S.J.) No. 1508 / 2005 2 Offenders Act on furnishing of probation bond for Rs. 2,000/- with two sureties for one year. Factual Matrix:- 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 08.11.1997, the accused persons including Moti Lal Sharma (appellant No. 2) and Hiralal Sharma (appellant No. 1) came to the house of the informant and threatened to withdraw the criminal case lodged by the informant and the informant assured that he would withdraw the said case if they maintain peace and good behavior with him. Upon this, Moti Lal Sharma armed with Bhujali and Hiralal Sharma assaulted the informant who got cut injury on his hand and after falling down, Sanjeev Sharma and Sushil Sharma assaulted with Lathi due to which the informant became unconscious and he was brought to Hospital by his family members. It is alleged that the wife of the informant was also beaten by Hiralal Sharma, Moti Lal Sharma and other accused persons. It is alleged that Munni Devi (appellant No.4) snatched the golden chain of the wife of the informant. On the basis of the written report of Informant, Golmuri P.S. Case No. 188 of 1997 was registered for the offence under Sections 147/323/324/341/325/337/379/307/ 448 of the IPC. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons and after taking 2026:JHHC:21972 Cr. A (S.J.) No. 1508 / 2005 3 cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where S.T. No. 241 of 1998 was registered. 4. In the course of trial, altogether 8 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, apart from the documentary evidence. 5. On the other hand, the defence has also examined three defence witnesses apart from documentary evidence. 6. The learned trial Court after considering the evidence available on record held the appellant No. 1 and 2 guilty for the offence under Section 323 and appellant No. 3 and 4 for the offence under Sections 448 and 352 of the IPC as stated above. Submissions on behalf of appellants: - 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that appellant Nos. 1 and 2 have been held guilty for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC however appellant Nos. 3 and 4 have been extended the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and released them after furnishing the bond but due to previous conviction of the appellant Nos. 1 and 2, they were not extended the same benefit rather sentenced them for S.I. of one year along with a fine of Rs. 500/- which has already been deposited. Learned counsel further submits that the case is of the year 1997 and the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 have remained in custody for 20 days out of one year as awarded by the learned trial Court. Learned counsel submits that about three decades have passed from the date of occurrence and both the 2026:JHHC:21972 Cr. A (S.J.) No. 1508 / 2005 4 appellants are aged about more than 65 years, therefore, the appellants have sufficiently been punished for their guilt and again sending the appellants for sustaining rest period of imprisonment would yield no useful purpose. Hence, the sentence awarded to the appellants may be reduced to the imprisonment already undergone by them to meet the ends of justice in this case. Submissions on behalf of the State 8. Per contra, Learned APP has defended the judgment of learned trial Court on merits but so far as quantum of sentence is concerned, he has submitted that this case is stale one of the year 1997 and the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 have sustained twenty days custody out of one year, hence appropriate order may be passed in the ends of justice. Analysis, reasons and decision: 9. I have gone though the record of the case in the light of contentions raised on behalf of the respective parties. 10. After going through the testimony of the prosecution witnesses as well as defence witness along with the documentary evidence adduced in this case including the injury reports of the informant as well as wife of the informant, it appears that the learned trial has rightly held the appellants guilty for the offence as stated above and passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and the same is hereby upheld. 2026:JHHC:21972 Cr. A (S.J.) No. 1508 / 2005 5 11. So far as the sentence of the appellant No. 1 and 2 are concerned, it appears that the occurrence is of the year 1997 and since then, three decades have elapsed and the appellants have suffered long agony of the trial and the appellants have remained in custody for 20 days out of one year, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellants again in jail for sustaining the rest of the imprisonment. Hence, it appears expedient, in the ends of justice to modify/alter the sentence of the appellant. 12. Accordingly, the sentence of the appellant No. 1 and 2 is modified to the extent of period already undergone by them. 13. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence as stated above. 14. Appellant No. 1 and 2 are on bail, hence, they are discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds. The sureties are also discharged. 15. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly. 16. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) 24.07.2026 Basant/- Uploaded on 25/07/2026