IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1187 of 2005 [Against the Judgment of conviction dated 20.08.2005 and Order of sentence dated 22.08.2005, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Deoghar, in Sessions Case No. 124 of 2003]

Nand Lal Pujhar, son of Late Mithu Pujahar, resident of Village – Sirsa (Pujahar Tola), Police Station-Mohanpur, District - Deoghar.

… … Appellant Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Dharmendra Pujahar, son of Late Dular Pujahar, resident of Village – Sirsa (Pujahar Tola), P.O. & P.S. –

Mohanpur, District – Deoghar.

… … Respondents …..

For the Appellant : Mr. Lakhan Chandra Ray, Advocate.

For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P.

…..

P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

JUDGMENT

Dated 09.04.2026

1.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.

Present criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 20.08.2005 and order of sentence dated 22.08.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Deoghar in Sessions Case No. 124 of 2003, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Section 325 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3.

The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on

28.07.2002, the informant Dharmendra Pujahar gave a written report in Mohanpur P.S. stating therein that yesterday at 3:30 P.M., the appellant abused him at Basdiha turn from where he started to his house and when he reached in front of the house of Baso Kapri, the appellant took a piece of bamboo and assault him on his head, upon which, he became injured and blood was oozing. Thereafter, the appellant went to the house of the informant and there also he assaulted the aunt of informant Nunwatiya Devi, upon which she has received grievous injuries below the left elbow. In the meantime, the cousin sister Kiran Kumar was coming, whom also the appellant assaulted by fist and slaps. On the written report of informant, Mohanpur P.S. Case No. 85 of 2002 was instituted for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 325, 307 and 504 of the I.P.C.

4.

After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the above-named sole accused. Thereafter, on 21.05.2003, charge under Section 307 of the I.P.C. was framed against the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of trial, the appellant was held guilty and sentenced as stated above.

5.

Learned counsel for the appellant without touching the merits of the case has confined himself towards non- extending the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the appellant to which he deserves. It is further submitted that it was the first offence of the appellant and never convicted earlier and the learned trial court without recording any special reasons required under law has sentenced the appellant for the seven years R.I. The occurrence is of the year 2002 and more than 15 years has elapsed. Hence, the sentence of the appellant requires modification and appellant may be awarded benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

6.

On the other hand, learned APP appearing for the State has defended the impugned judgment on merits, but has fairly admitted that the it was the first offence of the appellant.

7.

It appears that it was the first offence of the appellant and also in view of the manner and genesis of the occurrence, the appellant deserves the benefit of Section

4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

8.

In view of the above discussions and reasons, the conviction of the appellant is hereby upheld, but so far as sentence awarded to the appellant is concerned, the same is modified to the extent that instead of undergoing substantive period of imprisonment, the appellant is directed to be released, extending the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees T