2026:JHHC:25313 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1188 of 2017 -------- 1. Sukhdeo Rai, son of Late Sukar Rai 2. Kunti Rai @ Kunti Devi, wife of Sri Sukhdeo Rai 3. Amit Rai, son of Sri Sri Sukhdeo Rai All are residents of Gilanpara, P.O.-Dumka, P.S.-Dumka (T), District-Dumka ... ... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Paro Devi, wife of Bale Prasad Yadav, resident of Gilan Pada, P.O. & P.S.-Nagar, District-Dumka … … Opp. Parties ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate Mr. Aniket Jaiswal, Advocate Mr. Hammad Ahmed Ansari, Advocate Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, A.P.P. -------- P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- Dated: 21st August, 2026 By Court Heard Mr. Aniket Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 02.08.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 2016 by learned Sessions Judge, Dumka, whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court has dismissed the appeal by affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 29.09.2016, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka in G.R. Case No. 1368 of 2012 (T.R. No. 898 of 2016) whereby and whereunder the petitioners have been convicted for the offence under Sections 341/323/504/34 of the I.P.C. and petitioner No.2, Kunti Rai @ Kunti Devi has been released under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders 2026:JHHC:25313 2 Act after due admonition while other petitioners have been sentenced to undergo S.I. for one month each for the offence under Section 341/34 of the I.P.C.; S.I. for six months each for the offence under Section 323/34 of the I.P.C. and S.I. for one year each for the offence under Section 504/34 of the I.P.C. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Factual Matrix 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision as per written report of the informant is that on 12.11.2012, on the occasion of Dipawali, her daughter, Annu Devi came out of her house to light a Diya (Deepak). At that time his neighbours, Sukhdeo Rai, Amit Rai and wife of Sukhdeo Rai started abusing her. When the informant objected to this, Sukhdeo Rai struck on her head with a chain, as a result of which she sustained injury and fell down. It is further stated that other accused persons also assaulted with fists and slaps. When the daughter and son of the informant came to save her then they were also assaulted by the accused persons. It is further stated that the occurrence took place at 09:30 P.M. on account of a land dispute going on since long in between both parties. On the basis of above information, Dumka (T) P.S. Case No. 168 of 2012 dated 13.11.2012 was registered for the offences under Sections 341/323/504/34 of the I.P.C. against the accused persons. 4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences and accordingly, cognizance was taken for the same offences. The substance of the 2026:JHHC:25313 3 acquisition were explained in Hindi to the accused to which they denied their charges and claimed to be tried. 5. In the course of trial, altogether seven witnesses were examined and a documentary evidence was also adduced by the prosecution. 6. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced. 7. After conclusion of trial, the petitioners were convicted and sentenced as stated above against which they filed appeal which was also dismissed by affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence. Submissions on behalf of the petitioners:- 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been held guilty for the offence under Sections 341/323/504/34 of the I.P.C. and one of the co-accused, namely Kunti Rai @ Kunti Devi has granted the benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, but the other petitioners, namely Sukhdeo Rai and Amit Rai were declined only on the ground that they are male and assaulted to the informant and her daughter. The learned Appellate Court has also recorded no specific reasons declining from extending the benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The petitioners do not want to press this revision on merits but confined towards that non-extension of benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. It is admitted fact that it was petitioners’ first offence and there was no previous conviction for any offence. The reason recorded by the learned Trial Court is absolutely illegal and discriminatory on the ground of sex. The 2026:JHHC:25313 4 petitioners also deserve the benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act which was extended to the said co-accused. Hence, an appropriate order may be passed. Submissions on behalf of the State:- 9. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has defended the impugned judgment on merits but it is fairly admitted that it was the first offence of the petitioners and one co-accused being a female has been granted benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Analysis, discussions and reasons:- 10. I have gone through the impugned judgments of court below in the light of rival contentions of the respective parties. 11. Since the learned counsel for the petitioners without touching the merits of the judgment has confined himself towards the grant of benefit of Section 3 Probation of Offenders Act and no objection has been raised by the learned A.P.P., therefore, I have gone through the impugned judgment passed by learned Trial Court as well as Appellate Court and it appears that at the point of hearing on sentence, specific plea was taken by the petitioners that it was the first offence of the petitioners, hence, the petitioners may be released on giving benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 12. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the conviction of the petitioners is hereby upheld, but so far as the sentence awarded by the learned Trial court and upheld by learned Appellate Court to the above named petitioners are concerned, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of offence committed by the 2026:JHHC:25313 5 petitioners, the genesis and manner of occurrence, age, antecedent and character of the petitioners, petitioners are directed to be released within two months from the date of this order after due admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 instead of undergoing substantive sentence of imprisonment passed by the concerned Trial Court. 13. If the petitioners do not appear or fails to appear within stipulated time, the learned Trial Court shall issue notice upon the petitioners to secure their attendance for admonition. 14. If the petitioners, upon notice, do not appear, they shall serve the sentence already awarded to them by the Trial Court. 15. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence, as stated above. 16. Pending I.A(s), if any, stands disposed of, accordingly. 17. 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.) 21.08.2026 Arpit Uploaded on 24/08/2026