Satyendra Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand & Anr.

By Court:-

Heard Mr. Chandan Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P.

Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.09.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge 8^th, Palamau at Daltonganj in Sessions Trial No.164 of 2004 arising out of Hussainabad P.S. Case No.134 of 2003 corresponding to G.R. No.1335 of 2003, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under section 325 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years.

Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 12.10.2003 at about 11:00 am, while the appellant, being a contractor, was getting the work of construction of road done in front the house the informant, the informant raised objection and asked the appellant to construct the road above the level of drain. Thereafter, the discussion turned into a heated argument and the appellant asked his staffs to assault the informant and he himself assaulted the informant with kudal as a result of which the informant sustained head injuries. With a view to rescue the informant, his family members and other villagers came forward but in the meantime, accused Ram Khelawan Yadav, Govind Yadav, Ishwar Dayal Yadav, Binay Yadav, Bachhu Yadav and Ram Swaroop Yadav again assaulted the informant with lathi due to which he fell down and became unconscious. When the family members of the informant tried to bring the informant at hospital, he was restrained by the accused persons but with the help of other villages, the informant-injured was admitted at the hospital.

On the basis of fardbayan of the information, Hussainabad P.S. Case No.134 of 2003 was instituted for the offences under sections 341, 323, 307/34 of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions where Sessions Trial No.164 of 2004 was registered. The appellant has denied the charges leveled against him and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of the trial, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant was passed, which has been assailed in this appeal.

Prosecution has examined altogether 8 witnesses in this case namely:

P.W.1-Ram Raj Yadav

P.W.2-Pannu Yadav

P.W.3-Birwal Vishwakarma

P.W.4-Parmanand Vishwakarma

P.W.5-Pramod Kumar Singh

P.W.6-Anil Kumar Singh

P.W.7-Manik Chand Vishwakarma (Informant)

P.W.8-Dr. Dilip Kumar Singh

Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, following documentary evidence has been adduced by the prosecution:-

Ext.1-Fardbeyan

Ext.1/1-signature of Manik Chand Vishwakarma

Ext.2-Injury report of Manik Chand Vishwakarma

Ext.3-Injury report of Govind Yadav

On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defense. The case of defence is denial from the occurrence and false implication.

Learned counsel for the appellant without touching the merits of the judgment has confined himself to the point of non-extension the benefit of section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the appellant to which he deserves. It is further submitted that the injuries sustained by the informant-injured and one another injured, Govind Yadav are found to be simple in nature as corroborated by the injury report. In fact, it is the first offence of the appellant and he has never been convicted in any other case. Hence, the appellant deserves the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act.

On the other hand, learned P.P. has defended the judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant on merits but so far extending the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act is concerned, it is fairly admitted that it was the first offence of the appellant, hence, he deserves the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act.

I have given anxious consideration to the genesis, manner and place of occurrence. It appears that the dispute has broken out between the parties regarding road construction being executed under the supervision of the appellant upon which the informant raised objection and asked the appellant to elevate the road structure above the level of drain but the discussion turned into a heated argument and assault was committed upon the informant due to which he sustained injuries. The injuries sustained by the informant-injured and one other injured were found to be simple in nature and not dangerous to their life, which has also been corroborated by the injury report. The occurrence is of the year 2003 and more than two decades have passed. The appellant has been denied the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 without recording any special reasons by the trial court, to which the appellant is entitled.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of offence committed by the appellant, the genesis and manner of occurrence, age, antecedent and character of the appellant, it is expedient in the ends of justice to extend the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the appellant, for which the appellant appears to be entitled, instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment.

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 to the appellant by learned Trial Court, the appellant is hereby directed to be released on furnishing bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five Thousands) 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.

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

In case of violation of terms and conditions of the bond, the appellant shall be called upon to receive the sentence already awarded to him.

Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly.

Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record be sent back immediately to the concerned trial court for information and needful.