1. Jagarnath Rai, Son of Phulakhdari Rai. 2. Govardhan Rai, Son of Maharu Rai v. For the
Case Details
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 599 of 2006 [Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 04.04.2006 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Case No. 244 of 1993 / 48 of 1993] 1. Jagarnath Rai, Son of Phulakhdari Rai. 2. Govardhan Rai, Son of Maharu Rai. 3. Badal Rai, Son of Bisheshwar Rai. 4. Nandlal Rai, Son of Late Shashi Rai. All resident of Village – Dubjora, P.S. – Sarwan, District – Deoghar. The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent … … Appellants Versus For the Appellants : Mr. Abhishek Sharan, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P. ….. ….. P R E S E N T
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT By Court: Heard Mr. Abhishek Sharan, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Jitendra Pandey, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. 2. Above named appellants have preferred this criminal appeal challenging the conviction and sentence dated 04.04.2006 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Case No. 244 of 1993 / 48 of 1993, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been held guilty for the offence under Sections 324 and 341 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 324 of the I.P.C. with Page 1 of 6 fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation and further sentenced to undergo S.I. for fifteen days for the offence under Section 341 of the I.P.C. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 28.11.1990 at about 10:30 AM, the informant was going to field for giving meal to his father and when he reached on road, in the meantime, the accused persons surrounded him asking that why his brother had given evidence, therefore, his family members had been bound down. Thereafter, accused Jagarnath Rai exploded two bombs on ground, due to which the informant got injury on his left eye. On raising alarm by the informant, Suresh Rai, Jhabi Rai, Dasharath Rai and Dani Rai also came there then Badal Rai shooted with arrow, which hit the forehead of the informant, Nandlal Rai also shooted arrow which caused injury to his brother Dashrath Rai, Gobardhan Rai also shooted arrow which caused injury to Suresh Rai and Jagarnath Rai also shooted arrow and caused injury to Dani Rai. After sustaining injuries accused persons kept them surrounded, but later on, the brother of the informant namely, Mahadeo Rai came then then accused persons Page 2 of 6 fled away. Mahadeo Rai took arrows from the body of the injured persons and five arrows were handed over to the police. 4. On the basis of above information, FIR being Sarwan P.S. Case No. 141 of 1990 was registered against the accused / appellants for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 324 I.P.C. read with Section (cid:190) of the Explosive Substance Act and after completion of investigation, the I.O. of the case has submitted charge sheet under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307 of the I.P.C. All appellants namely, Badal Rai, Nandlal Rai, Gobardhan Rai and Jagarnath Rai have faced trial for the charge under Sections 324 and 341 of the I.P.C. Appellant Badal Rai is also facing trial for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and after conclusion of trial, the appellants have been held guilty and sentenced as stated above. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that during pendency of the appeal, appellant no. 1 namely, Jagarnath Rai has died and to this effect, a report has also been received from the trial court. 6. Considering the same, the appeal stands abated, so far appellant no. 1 namely, Jagarnath Rai is concerned. Page 3 of 6 7. Learned counsel for the appellant nos. 2 to 4 has submitted that the appellants have been held guilty for the offence under Sections 341 and 324 of the I.P.C. and maximum sentence awarded to them is one year. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that it was first offence of the appellants and never convicted for any other offence. The plea of first offender and extension of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 was raised before the learned Trial Court, but decline without recording any special reason. Hence, appellants deserve the benefit of extension of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, as such, learned counsel for the appellants without touching the merits of the case confined himself to the extension of benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 8. Learned APP opposed the aforesaid contentions and defended the impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence on merits and it is further submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is justified under law and requires no interference by way of this appeal, which is fit to be dismissed. 9. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of Page 4 of 6 sentence in the light of contentions raised on behalf of the appellants. 10. From perusal of impugned judgment and order, it appears that plea of first offender and extension of benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 has been declined without recording any special reasons. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of offence committed by the appellants, the genesis and manner of occurrence, age, antecedent and character of the appellants, it is expedient in the ends of justice to extent the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the appellants instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment, for which the appellants appear to be entitled. 12. In view of above discussions and reasons, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence to the extent that the appellants are directed to be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on furnishing bond of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety instead of undergoing substantive sentence of imprisonment passed by the concerned trial court, with Page 5 of 6 condition that they shall be of good behavior and shall maintain peace for a period of one year from the date of furnishing bond. The learned trial court may call for report from the District Probation Officer, if so required. 13. Appellants are further directed to appear before the concerned trial court within three months from the date of this order and furnish the bond as per direction of this Court. 14. In case of violation of terms and conditions of the bond, the appellants shall be called upon to receive the sentence already awarded to him. 15. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. 16. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. [ (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated : 04th December, 2024 Sunil /N.A.F.R. Page 6 of 6