IN THE HIGH COURT OFJHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1184 of 2005 ---------

1. JharuSikdar, Son of Late PrasadiSikdar

2. Bailu Rout

3. Gangu Rout 4. Jyotish Rout Appellant Nos.2-4 are son of late Panchu Rout, and all are resident of village-Ghat Kurba, P.S.-Pathergama, Dist. Godda ……Appellants Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Makuntala Devi, W/o-Prakash Rai, R/o-Village-Ram Suvdriya, P.S.- Palhargama, Dist.-Godda …. Respondents ---------

For the Appellants : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P.

-----------

PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT th Dated:09 April, 2026

1. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, learned counsel for the appellants and learned Spl.P.P.

2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20^th August, 2005 passed by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Case Nos.141/1997, 133/1999 arising out of Pathargama P.S. Case No.100 of 1996, corresponding to G.R. No.634 of 1996, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for the offence under section 325 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months.

Factual Matrix:-

3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 23^rd August, 1996 at about 8:00pm, all the above appellants while under drunken state, were abusing in filthy language by saying that whoever will come in their way to create obstacle in realization of rangadari, they will ruin their life. Acting upon which, the husband of the informant, namely, Jai Prakash Rai came forward and advised them to go their home as they are drunk but they got furious and chased the husband of the informant to assault but he managed to escape from the clutch of the accused persons. On the next day i.e. on 24.08.1996 at about 8:00 am, while the husband of the informant was taking a bath in front of his house, all the accused persons armed with deadly weapons came there and caught hold of him and started indiscriminately assaulting him with iron rod and lathi and caused injuries to him. Upon hearing hulla, all the locals arrived there and saved the husband of the informant from the assault of the accused persons.

4. On the basis of aforesaid information, Pathargama P.S. Case No.100 of

1996 was instituted for the offences under sections 341, 323, 325 and 307/34 of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions where Sessions Case No.Nos.141/1997, 133/1999was registered. The appellants have denied the charges leveled against them and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of the trial, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants was passed, which has been assailed in this appeal.

5. Prosecution has examined altogether 7 witnesses in this case and one documentary evidences i.e. injury report of injured, Jay Prakash Rai has also been adduced.

6. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. The case of defence is denial from occurrence and false implication due to village politics.

Submission on behalf of appellants:-

7. Learned counsel for the appellants without touching the merits of the judgment has confined himself to the point of non-extension the benefit of section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the appellants to which they deserve. It is further submitted that it was the first offence of the appellants and there was specific plea before the concerned trial court that the appellants may be given the benefit of section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act for the offence under section 325 of IPC, which has been proved against them but the learned trial court without recording any special reasons has awarded substantive sentence of imprisonment, which is not justified under law. The appellants deserve the benefit of section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1