2026:JHHC:13116 (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 630 of 2009) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 630 of 2009 -------- [Against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.05.2009, passed in Sessions Trial No. 20 of 2007 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-III, (Fast Track Court), Jamtara.] ------- 1. Gando Pandit, S/o. Late Jaso Pandit; 2. Harku Pandit, S/o. Late Jaso Pandit; 3. Manoj Pandit, S/o. Harku Pandit; 4. Sanjay Pandit @ Jhupar Pandit, S/o. Harku Pandit All are R/o. Vill.- Champapur, P.S.- Narayanpur, Dist.- Jamtara. ... ... Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Respondent -------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Appellants : Mr. Nityanand Pd. Choudhary, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P. -------- J U D G M E N T Dated: 30th April, 2026 1. Heard Mr. Nityanand Pd. Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellants and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned AP.P. 2. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.05.2009 passed in Sessions Trial No. 20 of 2007 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-III, (Fast Track Court), Jamtara, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted under Section 324 of the I.P.C. and in view of first offence of the appellants, the learned Trial Court instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment, has released the appellants extending the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Factual Matrix:- 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 05.08.2006 at 2026:JHHC:13116 2 (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 630 of 2009) about 7:00 A.M., when the informant along with her husband had gone to her field, she saw the accused Harku Pandit was ploughing her filed. When the informant forbade him doing so, the appellants namely, Jhupar Pandit, Manoj Pandit, Harku Pandit, Gondo Pandit and other two accused persons started assaulting her and her husband by arrow, bow stick and sabal. The accused Jhupar Pandit assaulted her husband by arrow which struck in the lower part of eye. The accused persons also assaulted him by arrow on both lower part of his knee. When her father-in-law came there for saving the informant and her husband, the accused person Manoj Pandit assaulted him by stick on his both hands and also on the lower part of his right knee. The accused persons also assaulted the informant by catching her hair. On alarm raised by the informant, villagers came and saved the informant and other. 4. On the basis of above informant, F.I.R. being Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 102 of 2006 was registered for the offence under Section 147, 148, 149, 323,326, 307, 504/34 of the I.P.C. 5. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323,326, 307, 504/34 of I.P.C and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions, where Sessions Trial No. 20 of 2007 was registered. The learned Trial Court after evaluating the evidence of the witnesses examined during the trial, held the appellants guilty for the offence under Section 324 IPC and instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment released them on probation of good conduct on entering into a bond of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety to 2026:JHHC:13116 3 (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 630 of 2009) appear and receive sentence when called upon during period of two years from the date of sentence and in the meantime, the accused persons were also directed to keep peace and maintain a good behavior. Submissions on behalf of the appellants:- 6. The learned counsel for the appellants assailing the impugned judgment on merits has submitted that there was land dispute between the informant and the appellants. It is further submitted that for the same occurrence there was case and counter case between the parties. The accused persons namely Harku Pandit and Manoj Pandit had also sustained injuries. It is also submitted that the prosecution has not examined the doctor, who examined the injured persons. The conviction and sentence of the appellants itself is not justified under law which is fit to be set aside. Submissions on behalf of the State:- 7. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the aforesaid contentions on behalf of the appellants and has submitted that the informant has categorically proved the earliest versions contained in the F.I.R. All the injured persons have been examined by the prosecution and they have fully supported the prosecution case. Therefore, there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment calling for any interference by way of this appeal which is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed. Analysis, discussions and reasons: - 8. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment in the light of contentions raised on behalf of the both side. 2026:JHHC:13116 4 (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 630 of 2009) 9. It appears that altogether eight witnesses have been examined by the prosecution: - P.W.-1 Lira @ Sambhu Pandit P.W.-2 Khublal Pandit P.W.-3 Lukman Mian P.W.-4 Lira Pandit @ Sambhu Pandit P.W.-5 Jahur Mian P.W.-6 Kali Mian P.W.-7 Dukhni Devi (informant) P.W.-8 Baban Tiwari Apart from oral evidence, following documentary evidences have been adduced by the prosecution:- I. Exhibit-1 Signature of Khublal Pandit on fardbeyan II. Exhibit -2 Signature of J.S.I. Surith Sharma n formal F.I.R. III. Exhibit-3 Requisition for injury report of Hublal Pandit IV. Exhibit-4 Requisition for injury report of Shambhu Pandit 10. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been examined on behalf of defence. 11. From the testimony of witnesses, it appears that the injured-cum- informant has consistently proved her plea that she and her family members were assaulted by the appellants by means of arrow, bow stick and sabal which also finds corroboration from the injury slips. Therefore, the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. 2026:JHHC:13116 5 (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 630 of 2009) 12. I further find that the learned Trial Court after considering the over all aspects of the case and the nature of offence committed by the appellants as well as in view of the fact that it was first offence of the appellant, the learned Trial Court has taken a lenient view while extending the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. Therefore, I don’t find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order calling for any interference in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. 13. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly. 14. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record be sent back immediately to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) 30.04.2026 Rahul Uploaded on 05/05/2026