Ashok Yadav v. The State of Jharkhand

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT Dated - 11.05.2026 By Court:- Learned Spl. P.P. appearing for State has submitted counter affidavit in the Court which is accepted. Let the same be kept on record.

2. Learned Spl. P.P. has submitted that appellant No.7 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.1011 of 2008 Page | 1 Kailash Yadav in this case has been reported to have died in the year 2022 and in this regard, he has submitted counter affidavit annexing the necessary documents of the death of appellant No.7.

3. In view of the above, due to death of the appellant No.7, the appeal on behalf of appellant No.7 namely Kailash Yadav stands abated and disposed of. Rest of the serving appellants have been renumbered.

4. Heard Mr. Avilash Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State.

5. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants against judgment of conviction dated

18.07.2008 and order of sentence dated 19.07.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Koderma in Sessions Trial No.40 of 2006 arising out of Jainagar P.S. Case No.41 of 2004, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for the offences under Sections 147 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for two years. Four accused namely Lochan Mahto (deceased), Ashok Yadav (appellant No.1), Prakash Yadav (appellant No.4) and Ramdeo Yadav Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.1011 of 2008 Page | 2 (appellant No.6) were convicted under Section 148 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years. The accused Lochan Mahto (deceased), not appellant in this appeal, was convicted under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years along with fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation and further remaining eight accused persons were convicted under Section 323 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year.

6. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on

27.06.2004 at about 08:30 a.m., while the informant Prakash Singh (P.W.4) was engaged in sowing maize crops in his field, he received information from his family members that accused Lochan Mahto (now deceased) and others were forcibly ploughing the disputed land. Upon reaching the place of occurrence along with his uncle Jagdish Singh (since deceased), cousin Mahendra Singh (P.W.3) and uncle Khago Singh (P.W.1), objection was raised by them regarding the illegal ploughing of their land. It is alleged that in the meantime, a large number of accused persons armed with deadly weapons, arrived there and in furtherance of their common object, launched a violent assault. It is further alleged that accused Lochan Mahto assaulted the informant Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.1011 of 2008 Page | 3 with farsa causing multiple cut injuries on his head, forehead and leg, while co-accused Munshi Yadav inflicted a bhala blow on the abdomen of Jagdish Singh resulting in his death at the spot. It is further alleged that Khago Singh and Mahendra Singh also sustained injuries during occurrence. After committing the alleged offence, the accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence on a red- coloured tractor brought by them beforehand. On the basis of above farbeyan (Ext.2), Jainagar P.S. Case No.41 of 2004 was registered for the offences under Sections 147/148/149/323/324/307 and 302 of the I.P.C. against the accused persons.

7. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants for the aforesaid offences and accordingly, cognizance was taken and subsequently, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed under Sections 147, 148, 323/149, 307/149 and 302/149 of the I.P.C. against the appellants which were read over and explained to them for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.1011 of 2008 Page | 4

8. In the course of trial, altogether nine witnesses were examined and several documentary evidences were also adduced by the prosecution.

9. On the other hand, only one witness has been examined by the defence and documentary evidence were also adduced.

10. After conclusion of trial, impugned judgment and order has been passed which has been assailed in this appeal.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants without touching the merits of the judgment has confined himself towards the point of non-extension of the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. It is further submitted that there was land dispute between the parties. The maximum sentence imposed upon the appellants for the offence under Section 147 of the I.P.C. is R.I. for two years and appellant Nos.1, 4 and 6 have been further convicted for the offence under Section 148 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years. The incident has happened in the year 2004 and now more than two decades have been elapsed. It is mentioned in the judgment itself that the appellants have clean criminal antecedents and they were never convicted for any offence and in spite of that without recording any special Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.1011 of 2008 Page | 5 reasons as mandated under law, the learned Trial Court has declined to extend the benefit of Section 360 of Cr.P.C. or the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act to which the appellants deserve. Hence, appellants deserve benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment as granted by the learned Trial Court.

12. On the other hand, learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State has defended the impugned judgment on merits but so far giving the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act is concerned, no objection has been raised, while submitted that appropriate order may be passed.

13. I have given anxious consideration to the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of both side and also perused the impugned judgment and order along with materials available on record.

14. It appears that there was land dispute between the parties and the plea taken by appellants at the time of hearing on quantum of sentence that the appellants have never been previously convicted for any other offence, has been rejected by learned Trial Court only on the ground of seriousness of offence. The incident was of the year 2004 and more than two Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.1011 of 2008 Page | 6 decades have been passed since the date of commission of offence. It is also pleaded that the appellant in the aforesaid period has also maintained peace and harmony and has never been involved in any other criminal activities. No substantial special reasons have been recorded by learned Trial Court. I find that the appellants deserve the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

15. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, there is no requirement of calling for any report from the Probation Officer due to lapse of considerable time from the alleged occurrence.

16. 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 extend the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the appellants, for which the appellants appear to be entitled, instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment.

17. In view of the above, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence to the extent that instead of undergoing substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.1011 of 2008 Page | 7 to the appellants by learned Trial Court, the appellants are hereby directed to be released on furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 within two months from the date of this order for maintaining peace and be of good behavior for one year from the date of furnishing the bond.

18. If the bond is not furnished within above stipulated time, the learned Trial Court shall issue notice upon the appellants to secure their attendance for furnishing the bond.

19. In case of violation of terms and conditions of the bond, the learned Trial Court shall call upon the appellants to serve the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to them.

20. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

21. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court record be sent back immediately to the concerned Trial Court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 11/05/2026 Sachin / Uploaded On: 15/05/2026 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.1011 of 2008 Page | 8