Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Aliajan Mian, Son of Late Leelo Mian - Appellants
Vs.
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1438 of 2006
Decided On : 28-01-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 325/34 - Criminal appeal against conviction and sentence for causing injuries - Conviction upheld, but sentence modified to extend benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 due to no prior convictions and character of appellants - Incident occurred due to a land dispute, resulting in serious injuries to the informant. (Paras 10, 15, 18)
(B) Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Section 4 - Court has discretion to extend probationary benefits, particularly for first-time offenders without prior criminal records. (Para 15)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for assaulting the informant during a land dispute, resulting in various injuries, including grievous harm. (Para 5)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellants had no previous convictions and had maintained peace post-incident, warranting the application of probation instead of imprisonment. (Paras 15, 18)
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellants should be granted the benefit of probation given their first-time offender status and the nature of the incident. (Para 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that probation is appropriate for first-time offenders who have demonstrated good behavior post-offense, emphasizing the need for justice and rehabilitation over punishment. (Para 15)
Result: Appeal dismissed with modification of sentence to probation.
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, resulting which he sustained injuries on left knee, lower portion of right leg and also sustained injuries on his wrists. Thereafter, he fell on the ground. The witnesses of the incident are daughter-in-law of Dayal Mahto, Isar Mahto, Shilo Mahto, Jagdish, Toto and other villagers, who belongs to Daldal Village.
6. On the basis of above information, FIR was registered as Sadar, Giridih P.S. Case No. 156 of 1994 against the above named accused persons for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 307, 325/34 of the I.P.C.
7. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer of the case has submitted charge sheet against accused persons for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 307, 325/34 of the I.P.C. After taking cognizance of offence, the case was committed for the trial thereafter, the charges were framed for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 325, 307 of the I.P.C., which they denied and claimed to be tried.
8. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused persons altogether six witnesses were examined by the prosecution.
P.W.-1 : Toto Yadav P.W.-2 : Asagar Ansari (Informant).
P.W.-3 : Suidu Khatoon.
P.W.-4 : Mennu Khatoon.
P.W.-5 : Dr. Suresh Chandra Sharma.
P.W.-6 : Jyotis Chandra Pathak (formal witness).
9. Apart from oral evidence, following documentary evidences were also adduced.
Exhibit-1 : Written Report.
Exhibit-1/1 : Endorsement of the Officer-In-Charge of Police on the written report.
Exhibit-2 : Injury Report.
Exhibit-3 : Signature of Ayodhayay Rai, then Officer-In-Charge of Dhanwar P.S. on formal FIR.
Exhibit-3/1 : Formal FIR.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants instead of challenging the impugned judgment and order of conviction has confined his argument on the point of not extending the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and has submitted that there is a case of land dispute between the parties and due to harvesting of paddy crops. The incident happened in a sudden manner causing some injuries to the informant party. Counter case has also been filed by the present appellants.
11. It is further submitted that it is appellants’ first offence as they have never been convicted earlier for any other offence, but the learned trial court has not considered the said aspect of this matter and sentenced the appellants with Rigorous Imprisonment of three years along with fine of Rs.1,000/-. Appellants have no criminal background and after conviction in this case, appellants have also maintained peace and have not involved in any other criminal activities. This fact was also not considered by the learned trial court and plea for extending the benefit of Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958 has been denied without recording any special reasons. Hence, the appellants deserve the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation o
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.
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
