2026:JHHC:10091 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 160 of 2008 -------- 1. Dinanath Mandal @ Dinesh Mandal, 2. Srikant Mandal, Both are sons of Shri Sahdeo Mandal, residents of Village Kakania, P.O. & P.S. Saraiyahat, Dist Dumka ... ... Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Respondent -------- CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Appellants :Mrs. Vani Kumari, Adv. Ms. Manisha Shaily Nag, Adv. For the State :Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P. -------- J UDGMENT Dated: 08th April, 2026 1. Heard Mrs. Vani Kumari, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Learned APP for the State. 2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence both dated 22.01.2008 passed in Sessions Case No. 24 of 2006 by the learned 5thAddl. Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Dumka whereby and whereunder both the appellants have been convicted under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for two and half years, further appellant No. 1 Dinanath Mandal @ Dinesh Mandal has been convicted under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months. However, both the sentence of appellant No. 1 was directed to run concurrently. Factual Matrix 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 08.12.2004 when daughter-in-law of informant namely Sunita Devi was cleaning drainage of the house, then, her neighbor Dinanath 2026:JHHC:10091 2 Mandal (appellant No. 1) asked her not to throw the garbage towards his side. There was hot exchange of words between them. Then, Dinanath Mandal caught Sunita Devi by her hair. She then went for rescue when Dinanath assaulted her with brick causing bleeding head injury. On her halla, Deepak Mandal (P.W.-4) came there and was also assaulted by Dinanath with brick. Then, he and Srikant (appellant No. 2) threw him on the ground and started assaulting with brick on his chest and back and also strangulated him due to which Deepak Mandal became unconscious. Then by a rickshaw, they brought him to Saraiyahat Hospital for treatment. 4. On the basis of aforesaid information, Saraiyahat P.S. Case No. 173 of 2004 for the offence under Section 341, 323, 307/34 of the IPC was registered. After completion of investigation, the charge- sheet was submitted against the appellants and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions, where Sessions Case No.24 of 2006 was registered. The appellants have denied the charges leveled against them and claimed to be tried. 5. It appears that altogether nine witnesses have been examined by the prosecution: - P.W.-1 Jeena Devi P.W.-2 Nitesh Kr. Kotwal P.W.-3 Chandan Mahto P.W.-4 Deepak Mandal P.W.-5 Baby Devi 2026:JHHC:10091 3 P.W.-6 Sunita Devi P.W.-7 Sobha Devi P.W.-8 Dr. Choudhry Chandra Shekhar Pd. Singh P.W.-9 Mantu Chandra Tiwari 6. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. The case of defence is complete denial from occurrence and pleaded they are innocent and have committed no offence. In their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the manner of occurrence and further pleaded their innocence. Submissions on behalf of the appellants 7. Learned counsel for the appellants without touching the merits of this judgment has submitted that both the appellants have been convicted and sentenced for two and half years for the offence under Section 324 of the IPC and further appellant No. 1 was convicted and sentenced for six months under Section 323 of IPC. It appears from the judgment of learned trial Court that it was the first offence of the appellants and in spite of specific pleading, the appellants have not been extended the benefit of Section 3/4 of Probation of Offenders Act without recording specific reasons. The simple reason recorded by the learned trial Court is that it is crime against woman, therefore, Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the appellants. The reason recorded by the learned trial Court is absolutely not justifiable under law and cannot be justified by any stretch of imagination. It 2026:JHHC:10091 4 is submitted that there is no bar in Probation of Offenders Act to grant such benefit, even, in the case of crime against woman. Therefore, appellants deserve benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. Moreover, the alleged occurrence is of the year 2004 and therefore, appellants have maintained peace and have settled in their life. Hence, the appellants may be extended benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. Submissions on behalf of the State 8. Learned APP has defended the judgment of learned trial Court on merits but so far as extension of benefit of Probation of Offenders Act is concerned, he has no objection. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, since learned counsel for the appellants without touching the merits of the judgment has confined himself towards the grant of benefit of provision of Probation of Offenders Act and no objection has been raised by the learned APP, therefore, I have gone through the impugned judgment passed by learned trial court and it appears that at the point of hearing on sentence, specific plea was taken by the appellants that it was the first offence of the appellants, hence, they may be released on probation bond giving benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. 10. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the conviction of the appellants is hereby upheld but their sentence is modified to the extent that they shall appear before the learned trial court within three months from the date of this judgment and the learned trial 2026:JHHC:10091 5 court shall release the appellants under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 upon his furnishing of bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety, subject to condition that the appellants shall maintain peace and good behavior for one year, failing which, the impugned judgment and order of learned trial Court shall remain effective. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence as stated above. In case of violation of any terms of bond, the appellants shall be called upon to receive sentence awarded to them by learned trial Court. 11. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly. 12. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) 08.04.2026 Basant Uploaded on 16/04/2026