Bhola Ram v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.

: Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR J U D G M E N T By Court

1. Heard learned counsel the appellant; learned A.P.P. representing the State and the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 to 4.

2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of sentence dated 28.01.2023 passed in SC/ST Case No. 61 of 2020 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum – Special Judge, CAW, Hazaribag, whereby the learned Trial Court has acquitted private respondent no.2 and 3 namely Mukesh Yadav @ Kaila and Sidhu Gope from all the charges under Section 323/34 and 354 of the IPC read with Section 3(i)(e), 3(i)(r), 3(i)(s) of the S.C./S.T. (POA) Act. However, the respondent no.4 – Dinesh Yadav was acquitted of the charge under 1 Acq. Appeal (SJ) No. 68 of 2023 Section 323/34 of the IPC read with Section 3(i)(e), 3(i)(r), 3(i)(s) of the S.C./S.T. (POA) Act but he has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC. After his conviction, he has been released after due admonition giving him benefit of the provision under the Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958.

3. The criminal law has been put into motion by lodging a complaint petition by the complainant namely Bhola Ram on 30.09.2020 before the Special Judge, SC/ST, Hazaribag being SC/ST Case No. 61 of 2020. The brief fact of the case is that the complainant belongs to the Scheduled Caste community and he survives with his family by doing cultivation work. On 05.09.2020 at around 7.00 A.M. while he was plucking maize near his house, accused Mukesh Yadav @ Kaila, Dinesh Yadav and Sidhu Gope entered into his field and started abusing him by addressing his caste name and prohibited him from plucking maize. When the same was objected by the complainant, the accused got angry and abused him with filthy language by naming his caste and assaulted him badly due to which his shirt got torn. They also applied black colour on his face and made him naked which was also seen by the neighbour. It is further alleged that when the wife of the complainant came to his rescue, accused Dinesh Yadav outraged her modesty by tearing his blouse. It is alleged that the accused persons belong to an extremist’s organization. Since, no action was taken by the Police, complainant has filed the complaint petition before the Court.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, SC/ST Case No. 61 of 2020 was lodged on 30.09.2020 under Sections 341, 323, 354/34 of the IPC read with Section 3(i)(e)(g)(r)(s)W(i) of the SC/ST Act against the accused persons.

5. Thereafter charge was framed under Section 323/34, 354 of the IPC read with Section 3(i)(e), 3(i)(r) & 3(i)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, which was read over to the accused, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To substantiate the charge altogether four prosecution witnesses 2 Acq. Appeal (SJ) No. 68 of 2023 were examined. Their brief statements are as follows: I. P.W.1 – Bhola Ram is the informant of the case and he has supported the case of the prosecution. He has stated that on

05.09.2020 at 07:00 A.M. when he along with his wife and kids were plucking maize from their field situated at Khata No. 103, plot No. 138/1 which is in the name of his great grandfather, all these accused started abusing them in a filthy language by addressing their caste name and forcibly entered into his maize field and started plucking his maize forcefully. The accused Sidhu Gope torn his shirt and made him naked thereafter applied black colour on his face. When his wife raised alarm, accused Dinesh Yadav thrashed her on the earth and molested her by tearing her blouse. Hearing their alarm, witnesses reached there, upon which these accused threated to kill them. In his cross-examination he has admits that is there is a land dispute with the accused Sidhu Gope for which proceeding u/s 107 and 144 Cr.P.C was initiated which are now dropped. He neither took any treatment for the injury sustained due to assault by these accused nor took any photograph of the black colour applied on his face. II. PW-2 Dhaneshwar Ram is the neighbour and a hearsay witness. In para- 11 of his cross examination he has stated that he has not seen the accused committed the offence. III. PW-3 Prakash Ravidas is one of the villagers. During cross examination he has admitted that when the occurrence was over, he reached at the place of occurrence and he has not put his signature on the application filed by the victim at the police station nor clicked any photograph of the victim with black coloured applied on his face by accused. IV. PW -4 Bodhan Ram @ Budhan Mochi is the cousin nephew of complainant and also a neighbour. In his examination in chief, he has admitted that it was accused Dinesh who tried to outrage the modesty of the informant’s wife. In cross examination at para 22 3 Acq. Appeal (SJ) No. 68 of 2023 he has admitted that threw s no land dispute between the parties.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to Section 3 of the Probation of the Offenders Act and it has been submitted that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the private respondents- accused persons have supported the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that: I. II. the prosecution story starts with the complaint petition and charge has been framed under 323/34, 354 of the IPC read with Section 3(i)(e), 3(i)(r) & 3(i)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. The learned Trial Court after evaluation of the evidences on record has acquitted the respondent no.2 and 3 namely Mukesh Yadav @ Kaila and Sidhu Gope from the charges under Section 323/34, 354 of the IPC read with Section 3(i)(e ), 3(i)(r) & 3(i)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. III. However, respondent no.4 Dinesh Yadav was acquitted from the charge under Section 323/34 of the IPC read with Section 3(i)(e), 3(i)(r) & 3(i)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act but he has been found guilty for the offence under Section 354 of the IPC and he has been convicted accordingly. IV. Thereafter, considering the fact that there is no previous conviction against Dinesh Yadav and also considering the other mitigating circumstances, the learned Trial Court by exercising its power gave the benefit of provision of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the accused Dinesh Yadav and released him after due admonition.

10. It is settled principle of law that the nomenclature of any section or act is not relevant. What is relevant is the power of the Court. Section 360 of the Cr.P.C. reads as under: “360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after 4 Acq. Appeal (SJ) No. 68 of 2023 admonition.—(1) When any person not under twenty-one years of age is convicted of an offence punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less, or when any person under twenty-one years of age or any woman is convicted of an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and no previous conviction is proved against the offender, if it appears to the Court before which he is convicted, regard being had to the age, character or antecedents of the offender, and to the circumstances in which the offence was committed, that it is expedient that the offender should be released on probation of good conduct, the Court may, instead of sentencing him at once to 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 where any first offender is convicted by a Magistrate of the second class not specially empowered by the High Court, and the Magistrate is of opinion that the powers conferred by this section should be exercised, he shall record his opinion to that effect, and submit the proceedings to a Magistrate of the first class, forwarding the accused to, or taking bail for his appearance before, such Magistrate, who shall dispose of the case in the manner provided by sub-section (2). (2) Where proceedings are submitted to a Magistrate of the first class as provided by sub-section (1), such Magistrate may thereupon pass such sentence or make such order as he might have passed or made if the case had originally been heard by him, and, if he thinks further inquiry or additional evidence on any point to be necessary, he may make such inquiry or take such evidence himself or direct such inquiry or evidence to be made or taken. (3) In any case in which a person is convicted of theft, theft in a building, dishonest misappropriation, cheating or any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), punishable with not more than two years, imprisonment or any offence punishable with fine only and no previous conviction is proved against him, the Court before which he is so convicted may, if it thinks fit, having regard to the age, character, antecedents or physical or mental condition of the offender and to the trivial nature of the offence or any extenuating circumstances under which the offence was committed, instead of sentencing him to any punishment, release him after due admonition. (4) An order under this section may be made by any Appellate Court or by the High Court or Court of Session when exercising its powers of revision. (5) When an order has been made under this section in respect of any offender, the High Court or Court of Session may, on appeal when there is a right of appeal to such Court, or when exercising its powers of revision, set aside such order, and in lieu thereof pass sentence on such offender according to law: 5 Acq. Appeal (SJ) No. 68 of 2023 Provided that the High Court or Court of Session shall not under this sub-section inflict a greater punishment than might have been inflicted by the Court by which the offender was convicted. (6) The provisions of sections 121, 124 and 373 shall, so far as may be, apply in the case of sureties offered in pursuance of the provisions of this section. (7) The Court, before directing the release of an offender under sub-section (1), shall be satisfied that an offender or his surety (if any) has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place for which the Court acts or in which the offender is likely to live during the period named for the observance of the conditions. (8) If the Court which convicted the offender, or a Court which could have dealt with the offender in respect of his original offence, is satisfied that the offender has failed to observe any of the conditions of his recognizance, it may issue a warrant for his apprehension. (9) An offender, when apprehended on any such warrant, shall be brought forthwith before the Court issuing the warrant, and such Court may either remand him in custody until the case is heard or admit him to bail with a sufficient surety conditioned on his appearing for sentence and such Court may, after hearing the case, pass sentence. (10) Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), or the Children Act, 1960 (60 of 1960) or any other law for the time being in force for the treatment, training or rehabilitation of youthful offenders.”

11. Thus, the Court has such power to release the convict after due admonition under the circumstances mentioned under Section 360 of the Cr.P.C.

12. In the present case, the Court has exercised its discretion and there is nothing on record to suggest that ingredients present in Section 360 of the Cr.P.C. has not been taken into consideration.

13. In that view of the matter, I find no reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Court below.

14. In the result, the present acquittal appeal is dismissed. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Dated 13th May, 2026 A. Mohanty Jharkhand High Court Uploaded ____/____/2026 6 Acq. Appeal (SJ) No. 68 of 2023