Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J
Aliajan Mian, Son Of Late Leelo Mian – Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Originally this appeal was filed by the three appellants, out of them, Appellant No.2 Usman Mia has been died during the pendency of this appeal and to this effect, an affidavit has been filed by the State. Therefore, this appeal stands abated as against appellant no. 2 Usman Mian, vide order dated 06.01.2025 passed by this court.
3. Heard, Mr. Deepak Kumar Shah, learned counsel appearing for the appellant nos. 1 & 3 and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava learned APP appearing for the State.
4. Above named the appellants have preferred this criminal appeal challenging their conviction and sentence dated 25.09.2006 and 27.09.2006 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-VII, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 20 of 1996 convicted for the offence under Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code, sentenced to undergo R.I. of three years and fine of Rs.1,000/- each with default stipulation.
FACTUAL MATRIX
5. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a narrow compass is that on 18.11.1994 at about 08:30 AM, when the informant went for nature’s call, then accused persons surrounded and started beating him
The court emphasized the importance of rehabilitation over punishment for first-time offenders, allowing probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Conviction for attempted murder under the IPC was inappropriate given the lack of intent, and the appellants were entitled to probation benefits due to the case's circumstances.
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.
The trial court must provide specific reasons when denying probation to first-time offenders who demonstrate good conduct, as mandated by the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
The court ruled that the trial court erred in denying probation without special reasons, emphasizing the appellants' clean record and the nature of the injuries.
The court granted the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act to first-time offenders in a land dispute case, emphasizing the absence of serious injuries and long-standing peace pos....
The court held that while the standard of evidence met guilt under Section 324, it did not suffice for Section 307; a reformative sentencing was favored due to the delay in justice and the appellants....
Section 324 I.P.C. is as voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the successful proof of the charge against the appellants under Sections 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as the application of the Probati....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
