Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(JHK) 35
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J
NASIRUDDIN ANSARI And ORS. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF JHARKHAND – Respondent
Cr.A(SJ) 1065 / 2006
Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Adv., Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.
The trial court's failure to provide special reasons for denying probation to first-time offenders contravenes the Probation of Offenders Act, allowing for modification of the sentence.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 342, 386, 427, 325 - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Appellants convicted for various offences and sentenced to imprisonment - Court considered the nature of offences, background of appellants, and the absence of special reasons for denying probation. (Paras 10, 13, 14)
(B) Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Section 4 - Court found trial court failed to provide special reasons for not extending probation to appellants - Appellants entitled to benefit under the Act. (Paras 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
The informant, a security guard, was assaulted by the appellants with a rod, resulting in injury and property damage. The appellants were convicted based on eyewitness accounts and documentary evidence.
Findings of Court:
The appeal was dismissed on merits, but the sentence was modified to allow probation instead of imprisonment.
Issues: The main issues included whether the trial court failed to consider the benefit of probation for first-time offenders and the justification for the sentences imposed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trial court did not provide adequate reasons for denying probation, indicating that first-time offenders should be considered for such relief under the Probation of Offenders Act.
Result: Appeal dismissed with modification of sentence to probation.
JUDGMENT :
PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Heard Mrs. J. Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.
2. This instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15th July, 2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court No.9, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 111 of 2004, whereby and whereunder all the appellants were held guilty and convicted under Section 342 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo two years of R.I. All the above appellants were further held guilty for the offence under Sections 427 and 325 read with 34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo three years R.I. with fine of Rs.1000/- each for the offence under Section 386/34 of the I.P.C., three years R.I. with fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under Section 325/34 of the I.P.C. with default stipulation. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Factual Matrix
3. The prosecution case is based upon the F.I.R. lodged by the informant stating inter alia that informant is an employee as a security guard in Dhori Colliery, Bokaro. On 04.03.2003 at about 07:30 P.M., when the informant came from his duty and was sitting in his general shop, the informant told his son to close the shop and go to house. In the meantime, accused namely, Nasiruddin Ansari came there with rod and gave blow on the left hand of the informant due to which, his hand got fractured. Upon raising alarm by the informant, other accused persons started assaulting by rod and lathi to the informant and also began to break and damage the shop.
4. On the basis of aforesaid information, F.I.R. being Nimiyabat P.S. Case No. 017/2003 was registered against all accused persons for the offences under Sections 341, 342, 323, 325, 386, 307, 427, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and accordingly, cognizance was taken under Sections 341, 342, 323, 325, 386, 307, 427 and 506 read with 34 I.P.C. However, the appellants were charged for the offence under Sections 342, 386, 427 and 307 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C only.
6. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against all accused persons, altogether ten witnesses were examined by the prosecution.
7. Apart from oral evidence of ocular witnesses, following documentary evidences were also adduced.
Exhibit 1:- Written report by Aslam and Singh by P.W.7.
Exhibit 2:- Writing and signature of P.W.8, Dr. Santosh Kumar on injury report.
Exhibit 3:- Writing and signature of A.K. Giri identified by P.W.9 on formal F.I.R.
Exhibit 4:- Endorsement on written report by A.K. Giri identified by P.W.9
Exhibit 5:- Injury report of Sabruddin Khan in pen and signature of P.W.10, Dr. Jai Prakash Narain.
8. The case of defence is denial from the occurrence and the appellants are innocent and have not committed any offence rather they have been falsely implicated in this case. The defence has also examined three witness and adduced the following documentary evidence :-
Exhibit A : Panchnama prepared by Dhaneshwar Mahto on which D.W.1 and Shiva Mahto has signed.
Exhibit B : Public petition to the chief minister on which D.W. has singned.
Exhibit C: Sale deed No. 1943 dated 24.01.2006 identified by D.W.2.
Exhibit D: Sale deed executed by Gendo Mian, identified by D.W.2.
9. After conclusion of trial the learned trial court, after appraisal of the evidences adduced on behalf of the parties, held the appellants guilty for the offences under Sections 342, 386/34, 427/34 and 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentences as stated above.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants without touching the merits of the judgment has confined himself to the quantum of sentence against the appellants and submits that the dispute arose due to land dispute between the parties. In this regard documentary evidences has also been adduced. It was the first offence of the appellants, but the learned trial court has not taken into consideration
