2026:JHHC:21579 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 122 of 2017 -------- Shahid Ansari, S/o. Geddu Mian, R/o. Vill.- Bhitia, P.O. & P.S- Govindur, Dist.- Dhanbad, Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Kalimuddin Ansari @ Kalim Ansari 3. Shamsher Ansari 4. Altu Ansari O.P. Nos. 2-4 are son of Late Khatir Mian. 5. Rafique Ansari 6. Munna Ansari 7. Manijhla Ansari O.P. Nos. 5-7 are son Kalimuddin Ansari. All are resident of Village & P.O.- Bhitia, P.S.- Govindpur, Dist.- Dhanbad. …… Opp. Parties -------- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Subodh Kr. Dubey, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2-7 : None Judgment Dated:21st July, 2026 By Court:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.P.P. No one has appeared on behalf of O.P. Nos. 2-7. 2. Instant Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment dated 20.08.2016 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 43 of 2016 by the learned District Judge-cum-Addl. Sessions Judge-I-cum-Spl. Judge, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder, the conviction of the opposite party nos. 2-7 2026:JHHC:21579 2 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 122 of 2017) for the offence under Sections 323 & 452 of the I.P.C. passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. No. 1427 of 2008 dated 29.02.2016 has been upheld and the opposite party nos. 2- 7 have been released by extending the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Factual Matrix:- 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that on 21.07.2008 at about 8:00 P.M., the accused persons (opposite parties in this case), namely, Kalimuddin Ansari, Shamsher Ansari, Altu Ansari, Raphik Ansari, Manjhla Ansari, Munna Ansari, Asirya Bibi and Aslima Bibi armed with deadly weapons entered in the house of the petitioner and abused him and his wife Shahidan Bibi to whom they were calling witch and made allegation that she makes their children sick. It is further alleged that accused Kalimuddin Ansari hold wife of the petitioner with her hair and thrashed her on the ground and directed other accused persons to cause her drink human waste. Thereafter, all the accused persons assaulted his wife with kick. It is further alleged that another accused namely Rafiq Ansari torn the blouse of his wife and accused Manjhla Ansari snatched her silver chain from the neck. Accused Munna Ansari is alleged to have snatched her golden ear tops and all the accused persons threatened the petitioner and his wife to leave the village otherwise they would be killed. 4. On the basis of above, complaint case No. 1427 of 2008 was filed, for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 379, 452 & 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Witch Craft Act against accused persons. 2026:JHHC:21579 3 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 122 of 2017) 5. After the inquiry, the cognizance was taken against the accused persons under Sections 323 & 379 I.P.C. and accordingly charges were framed against the accused persons. After order of the Hon'ble High Court, charges were altered and charges under Sections 354 & 452 of the I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Witch Craft Act were added. 6. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. The learned trial court after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution and after hearing the parties, found the opposite party nos. 02-07 guilty for the offence under Sections 323 & 452 of the I.P.C and sentenced them accordingly. 8. Against the above judgment of conviction and sentence, the opposite parties preferred an appeal bearing Cr. Appeal No. 43 of 2016 before the court of learned District Judge-cum-Addl. Sessions Judge-I-cum-Spl. Judge, Dhanbad, wherein the appellate court affirmed the judgment of conviction but released the opposite parties by extending them the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. In the instant revision, the petitioner being the complainant has challenged the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2016. Submission on behalf of the Petitioner:- 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the learned Trial Court has convicted the opposite parties and sentenced them to undergo S.I. for one year alongwith fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence under Section 452 and S.I. for 6 months for the offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C. but the learned Appellate 2026:JHHC:21579 4 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 122 of 2017) Court has released all the accused persons by extending the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act explaining the reason that the nature of offence as alleged to have been committed by the accused persons was not so grim and serious and all the accused persons were equally entitled to get the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act when there was no any substantive allegation brought against them by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court is against the evidence on record. The learned Trial Court has rightly held the accused persons guilty and sentenced them accordingly. Therefore, instead of extending the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act passed by the learned Appellate Court, the accused persons be directed to undergo substantive sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court. Submission on behalf of the State:- 10. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and has submitted that the learned Trial Court has rightly considered the evidence of the prosecution and held the opposite parties guilty and sentenced them. It is further submitted that both the parties are of the same family. There is land dispute between the parties. The opposite parties had also lodged a criminal case bearing G.R. Case No. 2186 of 2008 and Govindpur P.S. Case No. 238 of 2008 against the petitioner, in which the petitioner and other accused have been convicted by the Court below and they were released on furnishing bond to maintain peace for a period of one year with surety by the then Trial Court. Land 2026:JHHC:21579 5 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 122 of 2017) dispute between both the parties is also said to be the main reason behind the lodging of the present criminal case. The learned Appellate Court has rightly released the opposite parties extending them the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Therefore, this revision is devoid of merit and fit to be dismissed. Analysis, discussion and reasons:- 11. I have gone through the record of the case alongwith the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both the parties. 12. It appears that both the parties are members of the same family and they all have been residing at the same place. On testimony of the witnesses, it appears that there is land dispute between the parties. The witnesses examined during trial are nephews, brother, his wife and himself. On the alleged date of occurrence, the opposite parties assaulted the petitioner and his wife by fist and slaps and also abused her in filthy language and for the same occurrence, there was case and counter case between the parties. The learned Trial Court had released the petitioner and accused persons by furnishing surety bond to maintain peace for a period of one year with surety in G.R. Case No. 2186 of 2008. In the instant case, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the opposite parties for the offence under Sections 323 & 452 of the I.P.C. and two of the convicts were released by extending them the benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Probation of Offenders Act. 2026:JHHC:21579 6 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 122 of 2017) 13. It further appears that since it was the first offence committed by the opposite parties and they have never been previously convicted in any other case. The nature of offence as alleged to have been committed by the opposite parties was not so grim and serious and all persons were equally entitle to get the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act when there was not any substantive allegation brought against them by the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court in Cr. Appeal No. 43 of 2016 requires no interference. 14. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision is dismissed. 15. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. 16. Let a copy of this order be sent through FAX to the concerned Trial Court for information and needful. 17. Let the trial court records also be sent back to the concerned Trial Court. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 21/07/2026 Rahul/NAFR Uploaded on 27/07/2026