2026:JHHC:9897 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.309 of 2016 Dhiren Bauri son of Late Rasee Bauri, resident of village Medha P.O. & P.S. Chirkunda District Dhanbad … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Adv. For the State : Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, A.P.P. Order No.11/Dated- 07.04.2026 I.A. No.4367 of 2017 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This application has been filed for condonation of delay of 16 days in preferring this revision petition. 3. The reason assigned in the application appears to be sufficient, therefore, delay of 16 days in filing the revision is, hereby, condoned. 4. I.A. No.4367 of 2017 is allowed accordingly. Cr. Revision No.309 of 2016 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. 6. The present criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 30.11.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge III, Dhanbad in Cr. Appeal No.29 of 2014, whereby and whereunder the learned Appellate Court has upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner/appellant for the offences under Sections 341/323 of the Indian Penal Code and considering the first offence committed by the appellant directed him to be released after due admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 7. So far as merits of the case are concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that injury report has not been properly proved and the doctor, who has been examined as P.W.6, has 2026:JHHC:9897 also not been able to state the date of examination of the injured, therefore, overall case is false and fabricated and motivated with grudge and vengeance. Hence, impugned judgment and orders are fit to be set aside. 8. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the aforesaid contentions and submitted that there is concurrent finding of guilt of the petitioner. Learned Appellate Court has taken a lenient view, while hearing on the point of sentence, keeping in view that it was first offence of the appellant, he was directed to be released after due admonition extending the benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and orders calling for any interference by way of this revision which is devoid of merit and fit to be dismissed. 9. I have gone through the judgment of both the learned Courts below, it appears that both the Courts below has very wisely and aptly analyzed and appreciated the evidence available on record. So far as conviction of the petitioner/appellant for the offences under Section 341 and 323 of the I.P.C. is concerned, there is no apparent illegality or infirmity calling for any interference, therefore, this revision is dismissed. 10. So far as order of sentence is concerned, the petitioner has already been released after due admonition under section 3 of Probation of Offender Act, as such no interference in the impugned judgment is required. 11. Let the copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court below. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Dated: 7th April, 2026 Sachin/ Uploaded On: 09/04/2026