2026:JHHC:12040 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1309 of 2008 [Against the Judgment of conviction dated 10.09.2008 and Order of sentence dated 12.09.2008, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. V, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No. 170 of 2000] Madan Sao, son of Late Babulal Sao, resident of Goushala Sindri, P.S. – Sindri, P.O. – Motinagar and District – Dhanbad. … … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent ….. For the Appellant : Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate. Ms. Ruchi Mukti, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P. ….. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT Dated 23rd April, 2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. Present criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 10.09.2008 and order of sentence dated 12.09.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. V, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 170 of 2000, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been held guilty and convicted for the offence under Sections 452 / 324 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years along with fine of Rs. 200/- and 1½ years respectively with default stipulation. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2026:JHHC:12040 FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 11.12.1998, the appellant entered into the house of the informant and when wife of the informant objected, the appellant assaulted the wife of the informant and his daughter by means of iron rod and caused injury on their body. When informant came to know about the occurrence, he rushed to his house from the shop and on his arrival to his house, he saw his wife and daughter in injured condition. On the fardbeyan of informant, Sindri P.S. Case No. 158 of 1998 was registered for the offence under Sections 448, 341, 323 of the I.P.C. 4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the above-named sole accused for the offence under Sections 448, 341, 323, 307 of the I.P.C. Thereafter, on 01.07.2002, charge under Sections 307, 323, 341, 452 of the I.P.C. was framed against the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of trial, the appellant was held guilty and sentenced as stated above. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant without touching the merits of the case has confined himself towards non- extending the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the appellant to which he deserves. It is submitted that the appellant has been 2026:JHHC:12040 convicted for the offence under Sections 324 & 452 of the I.P.C. and maximum sentence of imprisonment is R.I. of three years. Admittedly, there was case and counter case between the parties and F.I.R. (Exhibit-B) was also instituted by the appellant against the informant party due to assault given to the son of the appellant by the wife, son and daughter of the informant for breaking of goitha (dry cow dung) which find mentioned in the entire judgment only at the fag end at the time of hearing on the point of sentence. The learned trial court has not considered the Exhibit-B relied upon by the defence. Moreover, the dispute regarding trivial matters and the injuries sustained by the injured persons are also simple in nature. The learned trial court has not recorded any special reasons for declining the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. It is simply observed that since the convict entered into the house of informant and assaulted his wife and daughter, hence, learned trial court is not inclined to extend the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. Such type of reason deserving the absurd and not justified under law. The appellant deserves the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 6. On the other hand, learned APP appearing for the State has defended the impugned judgment on merits, but has fairly admitted that the it was the first offence of the appellant. 2026:JHHC:12040 7. It appears that it was the first offence of the appellant and also in view of the manner and genesis of the occurrence, the appellant deserves the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 8. Considering the same, the conviction of the appellant is hereby upheld, but so far as sentence awarded to the appellant is concerned, the same is modified to the extent that instead of undergoing substantive period of imprisonment, the appellant is directed to be released, extending the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, on furnishing bond of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 within two months from the date of this order for maintaining peace and be of good behavior for one year from the date of furnishing the bond. 9. If the bond is not furnished within above stipulated time, the learned Trial Court shall issue notice upon the appellant to secure his attendance for furnishing the bond. 10. In case of violation of the terms and conditions of the bond, the appellant shall be called upon by the concerned trial court to appear and receive the sentence already awarded to him. 11. In view of the above discussion and reasons, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification of sentence, as stated above. 2026:JHHC:12040 12. Pending I.A., if any, stand disposed of. 13. 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.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, the 23rd April, 2026. Sunil /N.A.F.R. Uploaded On 07/05/2026