Bokaro v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 1290 of 2005 --------- 1.Ladu Gope @ Arun Gope 2.Sanjay Gope 3.Bhirgu Gope 4.Kamal Gope @ Khepa 5.Timu Gope All sons of Mohan Gope and all resident of Station:Pindrajora, Police :Village: Kashijharia, District:Bokaro ..… Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Respondent ---------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ---------- For the Appellants : Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr.Prabir Kr. Chatterjee, Spl.P.P. --------- ORAL JUDGMENT IN COURT 11/21.10.2024 This Criminal appeal has been filed on behalf of the Appellants challenging the impugned judgment of conviction dated 09.09.2005 and sentence dated 12.09.2005 passed by Sri Alok Kumar Dubey, learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-2nd at Bokaro in Sessions Trial No. 397 of 2003, (arising out of Pindrajora P.S. Case No. 08 of 2003, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 95 of 2003), by which all the appellants, namely Ladu Gope @ Arun Gope, Sanjay Gope, Bhirgu Gope, Kamal Gope @ Khepa and Timu Gope have been convicted for the offence under Section 307/34 I.P.C. and Section 147 I.P.C. and they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for Five years under Section 307/34 I.P.C. and R.I. for 1 1 year under Section 147 I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine of Rs.500/- each they shall further undergo simple imprisonment of one month each. However, all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 01.02.2003 at 09.00 a.m. in the morning Informant Heeru Gope, along with his injured father came to the Police Stated and lodged Fardbayan alleging that at 06.30 a.m. in the morning on the same day, while the informant Heeru Gope was going to Pindrajora and when he reached near the house of Mohan Gope, then all the five sons of said Mohan Gope, i.e. Ladu Gope @ Arun Gope, Sanjay Gope, Bhirgu Gope, Kamal Gope @ Khepa and Timu Gope surrounded him. It is further alleged that when the Informant ran toward his house raising alarm, the aforesaid accused persons started chasing him and when the Informant reached near his home, the accused persons surrounded his father- Sywambhu Gope, who was present there and started assaulting him with Lathi etc., due to which his father sustained injury on his head and started bleeding. On alarm being raised, Suresh Gope, Digam Gope and others came there and saved his father and the accused persons fled away and the Informant alleged that the reason behind the occurrence is that on the day before the date of occurrence at 07.00-08.00 P.M. there was an exchange of hot words and abuses 2 between the two families and the accused persons threatened the Informant side of dire consequences. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, learned counsel on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, Special P.P. for the State. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below are illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that there is case and counter case between both the sides. It is submitted that the case instituted by the Informant against the appellants is false and concocted. It is submitted that the appellants are poor persons. It is submitted that the place of occurrence has not been properly proved by the prosecution. It is submitted that the injury report does not support the prosecution case as the injury on the person of the injured persons are lacerated injuries, whereas the informant has claimed that they were beaten by means of Farsa, i.e. sharp cutting weapon. It is submitted that Five (05) persons have sustained injury from the side of the appellants and there is no criminal antecedent. It is submitted that D.W.2 is the Medical Officer, who had examined the injured persons from the side of the appellant including the Appellant No.1. It is submitted that the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses and hence, the impugned judgment may be set aside. 3 5. On the other hand, learned Special P.P. has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is fit and proper and no interference is required from this Court. It is submitted that the appellants have assaulted the Informant and his father, who had sustained several injuries on their person. It is submitted that as per report of the Doctor Baleshwar Prasad, who is the P.W.1, the injuries are simple in nature. It is submitted P.W.3, namely Sywambhu Gope have also supported the case of the Informant and sustained injuries at the hands of the appellants. It is submitted that P.W.2 and P.W.4, namely Suresh Gope and Durga Gope have also supported the prosecution case. It is submitted that P.W.5 is the informant, namely Heeru Gope, who has supported the prosecution case. It is submitted that the P.W.6 is the I.O. of this case, who has submitted chargesheet against the appellants and has supported and corroborated the prosecution case. Thus, the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and hence, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no interference is required from this Court. 6. Perused the Lower Court Records and considered the submission of both sides. 7. It appears that the Informant Heeru Gope has lodged the F.I.R. on 01.02.2003 against the 4 appellants under Sections 147/149/323/314 of the I.P.C. Later on 307 was added vide order dated 29.03.2003. 8. It transpires that the police after conducting investigation, submitted chargesheet under Section 147, 149, 323, 341, 307 of the I.P.C. against the appellants on 09.06.2003. Thereafter, the learned C.J.M., Bokaro had taken cognizance against the appellant under Sections 147, 149, 323, 341, 307 of the I.P.C.on 09.06.2003. 9. After supplying the police papers to the accused persons and the case was committed to the court of sessions. 10. The charges in this case were framed against the appellants under Sections 149, 341, 147, 307 of the I.P.C. on 06.04.2004 by Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, then learned Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-2, Bokaro and to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 11. During trial the prosecution, in support of its case, got examined Six (06) witnesses, who are as follows: (i) P.W.1 is Dr. Balkeshwar Prasad, (ii) P.W.2 is Suresh Gope, (iii)P.W.3 is Swayambhu Gope, i.e. the injured and the father of the Informant. (iv) P.W.4 is Durga Gope, son of the injured (v)P.W.5 is Heeru Gope, i.e. the Informant, (vi)P.W.6 is Prem Sunder Prasad, Sub-Inspector-I.O. of this case. 5 12. The prosecution has got proved certain documents in support of its case, which are as follows:- (i) Ext. 1 is the Injury Report. (ii) Ext. 2 is the signature of the Informant on the written report, (iii) Ext. 2/1 is the written report. 13. Thereafter, the appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 08.04.2005 by the learned Court below, to which they denied the circumstances put forth before them. 14. The Defence, in support of their case, got examined Three (03) witnesses, who are as follows: 15. D.W.1 is Parbati Charan Mehta, who is the Advocates’ Clerk and has proved the F.I.R. of the counter case, i.e. Ext. A (i) D.W.2 is Dr. Balkeshwar Prasad (ii) D.W.3 is Ravi Gope (iii) D.W.4 is Kapura Devi 16. The Defence, in support of their case, has got proved certain documents as Exhibits, which are as follows:- (i) Ext. A is the certified copy of the Fardbayan of G.R. Case No. 96 of 2003. (ii) Ext. B to Ext. B/3 are the injury reports of the injured, namely Bhrigu Gope (i.e.Appellant No.3), Arun Gope (i.e. Appellant No. 1), Sanjay Gope (i.e. 6 Appellant No. 2), Kamal Gope (i.e. Appellant No.4), (iii) Ext. C is another injury report of Kamal Gope (i.e. Appellant No. 4) issued by the Bokaro General Hospital. 17. Thereafter, the Trial Court, after hearing both the sides, has convicted the appellants under Section 307/34 I.P.C. and 147 I.P.C. and sentenced them on different counts as mentioned earlier. 18. Therefore, this Court has to consider as to whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below is correct or not. 19. It transpires that F.I.R. was lodged by the Informant-Heeru Gope, i.e. P.W.5 on 01.02.2003 from which Pindrajora P.S. Case No. 08 of 2003 was filed under Section 147, 149, 323, 317 of the I.P.C. However, the accused side had also sustained injury which has been concealed by the Informant. 20. It transpires that one Sanjay Gope, i.e. Appellant No. 2, had also instituted Pindrajora P.S. Case No. 09 of 2003 against the Informant Heeru Gope and one Durga Gope and also against Suresh Gope and Awni Gope and due to which his brother Kamal Gope, i.e. Appellant No. 4 and Arjun Gope and Bhrigu Gope, i.e. Appellant No. 3 sustained injury and 7 the case was instituted under Section 452/ 379/ 511/ 341/323/341 I.P.C. 21. So far as prosecution witnesses are concerned, P.W.1 is Dr. Balkeshwar Prasad, the Medical Officer, who has examined the Injured Swyambhu Gope and found following injuries on his person, which are as follows:- “(1) Lacerated 4 ½” X ½” X Bone deep over Right side of head (2) Lacerated wound 2 ½” X ½” X bone deep- over Right side of Head (3) Lacerated wound 3 ½” X ½” x bone deep over Right Side of fore head (4) Lacerated wound 1 ½” X ½” X bone deep- over Left side of head. (5) Lacerated wound ¾”X ¼” X muscle deep – Over Left side of head. (6) L.W. ¾”X ¼” over Right Thumb (7) Echymosis 3” X ¾” Over right thigh C/o Severe Headache and Bodyache. M/I:- Black Mole over Right Cheek A/I:-Within 6 hrs. N/I:-All injuries are caused by Hard blunt objects and simple in nature, but intension was to produce major (Grievvous) injuries. ” He further submitted that all injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance and are simple in 8 nature and the injury report has been marked as Ext.1. 22. During cross-examination he stated that he has mentioned the injury report on the reverse of the requisition sent by the police. 23. Thus, from the evidence of P.W.1, i.e. the Doctor, it is evident that the injuries sustained by the Injured-Swyambhu Gope are simple in nature, though he sustained approximately Eight (08) injuries on his person. 24. P.W.2 is Suresh Gope, who is the local villager and he also stated that while he was at his residence, he saw Heeru Gope was going by Motor Cycle, then the appellants surrounded him and assaulted him by Lathi, Dunda and one of the appellants, namely Bhrigu Gope was having Farsa in his hand and started assaulting Heeru Gope (i.e. the Informant). On the alarm raised by the Informant, his father came and then the appellants assaulted his father by Farsa, Lathi and Dunta, due to which his father became unconscious in an uncomfortable position. Thereafter, the injured was brought to the Hospital. 25. During cross-examination, he admitted that one another case with regard to this case has also been lodged giving rise to G.R. No. 96 of 2003. It is admitted that initially they have instituted the case. He also admitted that the Appellant No.5, namely 9 Timu Gope and one Sanjay Gope, i.e. Appellant No.2 etc. who are the sons of his uncle. 26. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.2, it appears that the Appellants side and the Informant side are related to each other and the appellants are his cousin brothers. 27. P.W.3 is Sywambhu Gope, who is the Injured and stated during his evidence that while he was sitting at his door then he saw the appellants, namely Ladu Gope @ Arun Gope, Sanjay Gope, Bhirgu Gope, Kamal Gope @ Khepa and Timu Gope assaulting his son and then he arrived there to save his son and due to which his son fled away, who has not sustained any injury, but when he arrived there, then Timu Gope, i.e. Appellant No.5 assaulted on his head by Lathi and Khepa Gope assaulted him on his head by Farsa due to which he became unconscious and thereafter, other accused persons assaulted him by Lathi. He stated that he was firstly referred to Central Hospital, Chas. 28. During cross-examination, he admitted that his son has fled away to his house. He also admitted that the accused side has also instituted a case with regard to this occurrence upon them. 29. Thus, P.W.3 is an injured person, who has sustained injuries but evidence of P.W.1 had revealed that they were simple in nature. 10 30. P.W.4 is Durga Gope, who is another son of the Injured Sywambhu Gope stated that while his father was warming himself by the fire, then the appellants surrounded him and assaulted him by Lathi and Farsa. Bhrigu Gope assaulted by Lathi on the head of his father and he fled away and his father became unconscious. 31. During cross-examination he stated that the police was informed of the assault made by Farsa on his father by one of the appellants. He was confronted on the question of his not being the eye witness by the defence side. 32. From scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.4, it is evident that he is not the eye witness of the occurrence as he has not supported the version of his father Sywambhu Gope, who had stated that he had tried to save Informant Heeru Gope and then he suffered some injuries from the hands of the appellants. However, P.W.4 is silent on the presence of the Informant, hence P.W.4 is not the eye-witness of the occurrence and therefore, evidence of P.W.4 is not reliable. 33. P.W.5 is Heeru Gope, who is the Informant and who had stated that while he was on his way to Pindrajora, then on the way he was assaulted by the appellants by Lathi, Dunda and then he raised alarm and his father, who was warming himself by the fire, arrived there and then the accused 11 persons assaulted his father by Lathi, Dunda and Farsa, due to which he became unconscious. He proved the signature on the Fardbayan marked as Ext. 2. 34. During cross-examination he admitted that the accused persons had also instituted a case upon him. He also admitted that no one was present for the first time at the place of occurrence except him and he had not gone to the place of occurrence with his father, however, he fled away after his arrival. He further stated that his father remained in the hospital for a week. He denied the suggestion for his having gone to the house of the appellant for committing theft of his Ox. 35. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.5 it would appear that he has fled away without receiving any injury while his father was assaulted. Therefore, P.W.5 has not seen the occurrence as to who has assaulted his father and by which weapon. 36. It further reveals that the Informant P.W.5 and his Father P.W. 3- i.e. the injured person had claimed that the Injured remained in the Hospital for Seven-Eight (7-8) days, but the same was contradicted in the evidence of P.W.1, i.e. Dr. Balkeshwar Prasad, who had stated that the injuries found on the person of the Injured were simple in nature and he had not stated that the Injured was hospitalized for Eight (08) days. Neither any admission 12 slip nor any discharge slip of Sywambhu Gope, the Injured was produced by the prosecution to substantiate the fact of remaining of the Injured-P.W.3 in the hospital for 7-8 days. 37. P.W.6- Prem Sunder Prasad, Sub- Inspector, is the I.O. of this case, who has proved the endorsement of the Officer-in-Charge on the written application of the Informant marked as Ext. 2/1. After conducting investigation he had recorded the written statement of the Informant and the statement of the witnesses and had inspected the place of occurrence, which is said to be near the house of one Nitai Gope at a distance of 115 meters. Then, he had arrested the accused persons and recorded their defence statement. After recording the statement of Injured Sywambhu Gope and after obtaining the Injury report he has submitted chargesheet against the appellants on the direction of her superior officers. 38. During cross-examination, he admitted that accused Sanjay Gope, in his statement has stated that he had instituted Pindrajora Case No. 09 of 2003 on the same day of the offence taking place. He admitted to have not investigated their case on the point of occurrence. Suresh Gope etc. were trying to commit theft of Ox from the house of Sanjay Gope- Appellant No.2 and then alarm was raised. He has avoided to answer the question as to whether he had also investigated Pindrajora P.S. Case No. 09 of 2003 13 or not by saying that he did not remember as to whether he has investigated Pindrajora P.S. Case No. 09 of 2003 or not. He had not found any blood stain on the soil of the Place of occurrence and had also not seized the used arms. He had also not recorded the statement of Sarpanch, Chowkidar and Mukhiya etc. 39. Thus, from scrutinising the evidence of the Investigating Officer, i.e. P.W.6, it is evident that he has completed investigation of the case by submitting chargesheet under Section 307 I.P.C. without considering the fact that the injuries sustained by Sywambhu Gope, i.e. the Injured (P.W.3) were simple in nature He has also not supported the prosecution case that Injured Sywambhu Gope remained in hospital for 7-8 days. 40. So far as the Defence witness is concerned, D.W.1 is Parwati Charan Mehta, the Advocates Clerk, who has proved the written report of Appellant No.2- Sanjay Gope marked as Ext. A. He further stated that investigation of this case was handed over to the Prem Sundar Prasad-P.W.6, i.e. the Investigating Officer of this case. 41. During cross-examination, he admitted that the F.I.R. was not written before him and the Advocates’ Clerk of one B.N. Mishra, Advocate @ Santu Babu. 42. Thus, D.W.1 is a formal witness, who has proved the F.I.R., written report of the defence 14 side, but he has stated that Pindrajora P.S. Case No. 06 of 2003 was handed over to the same Investigating Officer who has investigated the Pindrajora P.S. Case No. 08 of 2003, who was examined as P.W.6 in this case. 43. D.W.2 is same Dr. Balkeshwar Prasad, who was examined as P.W.1 on behalf of the prosecution. 44. From perusal of evidence of D.W.2, it is evident that he had examined one Bhrigu Gope, i.e. Appellant No.3, Sanjay Gope, i.e. Appellant No. 2 and Kamal Gope, i.e. Appellant No.4 on the same day, i.e. on 01.02.2003. 45. During evidence he stated that he had examined Bhrigu Gope and found following injuries on his person, which are as follows:- “ (1) L.W. ½”X ¼” over left eye-Hard Blunt weapon. (2) Swelling ¾” X ½” over back of Right ear- Hard blunt weapon C/o:- Bodyache M/I:- Til over Left Lip A/I:-Within 12 hrs. N/I:- Simple” 46. He has also proved the injury report of Bhrigu Gope ( i.e. Appellant No.3) marked as Ext. B. 15 47. He further stated that he had examined Arun Gope on the same day and found following injuries on his person. “(1) Swelling ½”X ½” on the right side of the skull (head) (2) Swelling ¼” X ¼” on left hand Both injuries caused by hard and blunt weapon C/O:- Body Ache M/I:- Scar below left eye A/I:- Within 12 hrs. N/I:- Simple.” He proved the injury report of Arjun Gope as Ext. B/1. 48. He further stated that on the same day he had examined Sanjay Gope, i.e. Appellant No. 2 and found certain injuries on his person, which are as follows:- “(1) Swelling ¾” X ¾” Left dorsum of the Head-Hard blunt substance (2) Abrasion ¼”X ¼” Left little finger-Hard rough substance (3) Swelling ½”X ½” Little finger of Left hand. C/O: Body Ache M/I Til on Right side of chaste. A/I:- About 4 to 8 hours N/I:- Simple” 16 He has proved the injury report of Sanjay Gope as Ext. B/2. 49. On the same day he had examined Kamal Gope i.e. Appellant No.4 and found certain injuries on his person, which are as follows:- “(1) Swelling ¾”X ¼” Left side of skull-Hard Blunt substance C/O:- Severe Bodyache, M/I:- Til on the left side of neck, A/I:- About 4 to 8 hours N/I: Simple.” He has proved the injury report of Kamal Gope as Exhibit B/3. 50. However, he stated that Kamal Gope was referred to B.G.H. and he was examined by M.K. Das-Neurosurgeon, but he could not identify the writing and signature on the report of M.K. Das. 51. Thus, from scrutinising the evidence of D.W.2, who was earlier examined as P.W.1 by the prosecution it would appear that three appellants, i.e. Sanjay Gope, Bhrigu Gope and Kamal Gope also sustained injuries on their person though injuries were simple in nature. Even another person Arjun Gope had also sustained injuries which are simple in nature. 52. Thus, D.W.2 has corroborated injuries suffered by the appellants side at the hands of the Informant side. 17 53. D.W.3 is Ravi Gope, who stated during his evidence that he was acquainted with both the sides and in the night before the date of occurrence at around 2 p.m. had heard alarm and had gone to the house of Sanjay Gope, i.e. Appellant No.2 and had seen that Suresh Gope and Heeru Gope, i.e. the Informant on the point of pistol had arrived to take away the Ox of Sanjay Gope then Sanjay Gope and his mother raised alarm and several people assembled and the miscreants had fled away. He further stated that on the next day Sanjay Gope, i.e. the Appellant No.2 had gone to the house of Heeru Gope, i.e. the Informant and inquire about the Ox. Then Informant Heero Gope, Durga Gope, Suresh Gope, armed with Lathi and Farsa made him run but all the accused persons including the Informant had assaulted Kamal Gope, Sanjay Gope and Bhrigu Gope. 54. During cross-examination he stated to have seen the occurrence between both the sides. He further stated that Kamal Gope and Arun had sustained injury on the head, whereas Sanjay Gope, i.e. Appellant No.2 had sustained injury on the ribs. However, he had exaggerated by stating that Heeru Gope-i.e. the Informant had assaulted Sanju Gope. Thus, D.W. 3 has been examined on the point of assault made by the Informant side on the appellant side and injury of Appellant No. 2, Appellant 18 No.3 and Appellant No. 4 were proved from the evidence of D.W.2, i.e. Dr. Balkeshwar Prasad. 55. D.W.4 is Kapura Devi, who is a house wife and mother of Sanjay Gope and she had supported the defence version that miscreants Heeru Gope, i.e. the Informant and Suresh Gope had arrived at her residence for committing theft of the Ox. On the next day, when her son Sanjay Gope went to their house to enquire about the incident then the Informant and other persons made him run and assaulted her son Sanjay Gope, i.e. Appellant No.2, Bhrigu Gope, i.e. Appellant No.3. However, she exaggerated by saying that Sywambhu Gope, i.e. the Injured came to intervene and then he was assaulted also. It appears that there are several inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution case. 56. It transpires that P.W.6 is the Investigating Officer of this case, however, when he was confronted by the Defence side regarding the investigation of the counter case, i.e. Pindrajora P.S. Case No. 09 of 2003, he avoided by saying that he does not remember about investigating the said case. 57. Exhibit B to B/3 respectively are the injury reports of the Injured namely Bhrigu Gope, i.e. Appellant No.3, Arun Gope, i.e. Appellant No. 1, Sanjay Gope, i.e. Appellant No. 2 and Kamal Gope, i.e. Appellant No.4. 19 58. Exhibit C is the Injury Report of Kamal Gope, i.e. Appellant No.4, which reveals that Kamal Gope, i.e. the Appellant No. 4 has sustained head injuries, which was grievous in nature. 59. It transpires that there is a case and counter case between both the sides and the Informant has concealed the injuries sustained by the defence, i.e. the appellants side by the Informant. 60. In view of the fact that the Injured Sywambhu Gope had sustained simple injuries, this Court finds that no offence under Section 307/34 I.P.C. is made out and as such conviction of the appellants by the learned Court below for offence under Section 307/34 I.P.C. is converted to offence under Section 323 I.P.C. and the appellants are convicted for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. However, conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 147 of I.P.C by the learned Court below is affirmed and no interference is required. 61. For the sake of convenience, Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act is quoted below:- “Section 4:- Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct.—(1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the Court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Court may, instead of sentencing him at once to 20 any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding three years, as the court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour: Provided that the Court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the Court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond. (2) Before making any order under sub-section (1), the Court shall take into consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation to the case. (3) When an order under sub-section (1) is made, the Court may, if it is of opinion that in the interests of the offender and of the public it is expedient so to do, in addition pass a supervision order directing that the offender shall remain under the supervision of a probation officer named in the order during such period, not being less than one year, as may be specified therein, and may in such supervision order impose such conditions as it deems necessary for the due supervision of the offender. (4) The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall require the offender, before he is released, to enter into a bond, with or without sureties, to observe the conditions specified in such order and such additional conditions with respect to residence, abstention from intoxicants or any other matter as the court may, having regard to the particular circumstances, consider fit to impose for preventing a repetition of the same offence or a commission of other offences by the offender. (5) The Court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall explain to the offender the terms and conditions of the order and shall forthwith furnish one copy of the supervision order to each of the offenders, the sureties, concerned.” if any, and the probation officer 21 62. However, considering the fact that the occurrence took place around 20 years ago and more than 20 years have expired, it will be appropriate that the appellants be given the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offender’s Act and so far as sentence is concerned, the appellants, namely Ladu Gope @ Arun Gope, Sanjay Gope, Bhirgu Gope, Kamal Gope @ Khepa and Timu Gope are directed to be released on executing the bond of Rs. 2,000/- for a period of one year under Section 4 of the Probation of Offender’s Act. However, the appellants are directed to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period and in the meantime they must keep the peace and be of good behavior for the said period. 63. Thus, this appeal is allowed in part with modification in sentences as mentioned above. 64. The appellants, namely Ladu Gope @ Arun Gope, Sanjay Gope, Bhirgu Gope, Kamal Gope @ Khepa and Timu Gope are directed to furnish the bond within Six (06) weeks from today. 65. Let the Original Lower Court Records be sent to the Court below. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Judgment dated 21st October, 2024 N.A.F.R./s.m. 22