Court modified sentence under the Probation of Offenders Act, emphasizing rehabilitation for older defendants over incarceration, especially given the non-dangerous nature of injuries caused.

JUDGMENT :

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. It appears from the record that during pendency of this appeal, appellant No.1 viz. Kewal Mahto @ Kewal Gope has died and appeal in respect of the appellant No.1 has already been abated vide order dated 06.12.2024.

2. Heard Ms. Savita Kumari, learned amicus curiae appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State.

3. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 05.09.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Koderma in Sessions Trial No.519 of 1998 (corresponding to G.R. Case No.424 of 1996), whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for the offences under Sections 147 , 323 and 325 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for three years for the offence punishable under Section 3 25 of the I.P.C. with fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years for the offence punishable under Section 147 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for one year for the offence punishable under Section 3 23 of the I.P.C.All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

4. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that Saryug Yadav (informant) has lodged the F.I.R. stating inter alia that his sister, Srimatia Devi, was married six years ago but her husband, Kameshwar Yadav (appellant No.3) and in-laws were torturing her for dowry of Rs.40,000/-. Informant has further alleged that on 12.06.1996, at around 03:00 P.M., informant along with his father and 10 other respectable persons went to matrimonial house of his sister to resolve the issue through a Panchayati. Informant has further alleged that Kewal Singh (one of the accused) gathered 25–30 persons for the Panchayati but till the evening no Panchayati was held. However, in the evening, Kewal Mahto (now deceased) and the brother-in-law of the informant suddenly accused them of being dacoits and raised an alarm. The informant along with his father and other persons were surrounded and attacked with lathis (sticks). Ten members of the informant’s group managed to flee away, but the informant and his father were severely injured. Informant’s father lost consciousness and when the informant regained consciousness, he realized that some people were taking them to the hospital.On the basis of above fardbeyan, the case was instituted as Koderma (Telaiya) P.S. Case No.221 of 1996 for the offences under Sections 147 , 341, 323 and 325 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .

5. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants for the offences under Sections 147 , 341, 323, 325, 307 and 498(A) of the I.P.C. and Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and subsequently, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where Sessions Trial No.519 of 1998 (corresponding to G.R. Case No.424 of 1996) was registered. Charges were framed against the accused appellants under Sections 147 , 341, 323, 325, 307 of the I.P.C. of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and two appellants viz. Kewal Mahto (now deceased) and Kameshwar Yadav have been separately charged under Section 4 98(A) of the I.P.C. and Sections 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act which was read over and explained to them, to which they denied and claimed to be tried.

6. In the course of trial, altogether eleven witnesses were examined and following documentary evidence were also adduced by the prosecution:

Exhibit 1 : Injury re