Jharkhand High Court
Suresh Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 July, 2026
2026:JHHC:19693
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1154 of 2008
--------
1. Suresh Mahto, son of Bigan Mahto
2. Kedar Mahto, son of Bilash Mahto
3. Mahesh Mahto, son of Bigan Mahto
4. Yaduvanshi Mahto @ Banshi Mahto, son of Bilash Mahto
All residents of Village-Jarhgarh, P.S. & District-Garhwa
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
--------
For the Appellants : Mr. Ram Kinkar, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P.
--------
JUDGMENT
th
Dated: 06 July, 2026
By Court: Heard Mr. Ram Kinkar, learned counsel for the appellants and
Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl.P.P. for the State.
2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and
order of conviction and sentence dated 13.08.2008, passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.1, Garhwa, in S.T. No. 447 of 2000,
whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for the
offence under Sections 341, 323, 324 read with Section 34 of the
I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo S.I. for one month for the offence
under Section 341 of the I.P.C.; S.I. for six months for the offence
under Section 323 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for one year along with a fine
of Rs.500/- each for the offence under Section 324 of the I.P.C. All the
sentences were directed to run concurrently. It was further directed
that period already undergone during investigation, inquiry or trial
were set off.
Factual Matrix
3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the
informant, Bijay Mehta was sitting at the door of his house on
2026:JHHC:19693
26.06.1999 at 07:00 A.M., meanwhile, Kedar Mahto and Banshi
Mahto came with bullock and plough to till the field adjacent to the
informant’s house. Suresh Mahto and Mahesh Mahto also followed
them. The informant objected and told them that a case concerning the
said field was pending and that they could till the field only after the
judgment was delivered. Thereupon, an exchange of hot words ensued
between the two parties, after which the accused persons started
assaulting the informant by lathi and paina. Meanwhile, Banshi
Mahto and Suresh Mahto brought garasa and tangi from their house.
Seeing this, the informant started running away, but all the accused
persons assaulted the informant, his brother Ayodhaya Mehta, mother
Jitani Kuar and sister-in-law Pramila Devi and his wife. The informant
further stated that Bansi Mehta gave a garasa blow on his head,
causing a cut injury. He further stated that his brother sustained injury
on the hand and his mother also sustained injury on her back,
thereafter, the villagers arrived at the spot and saved them.
4. On the basis of written report, Garhwa P.S. Case No. 107 of
1999 was registered for the offence under Sections 341, 448, 323 and
324 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and later on Section 307 of the
I.P.C. was also added against four accused persons named above.
5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted
against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 324,
448, 307 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. in the Court of learned C.J.M.
The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under the
aforesaid Sections and the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. being
exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Therefore, the learned
2
2026:JHHC:19693
Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions.
6. The charges against the accused persons were framed under
aforesaid Sections to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.
7. In the course of trial, altogether five witnesses were examined by
prosecution.
P.W.-1-Pramila Devi
P.W.-2-Sila Devi
P.W.-3-Ayodhya Mahto
P.W.-4-Doctor Mahesh Pd.
P.W.-5-S.I., Rameshwar Pd.
Apart from oral evidence, the following documentary evidence
was also adduced:-
(i) Exhibit-1-Signature of O/c Garhwa on F.I.R.
(ii) Exhibit-x-Photocopy of injury report of Bijay Mahto
(iii) Exhibit-x1-Injury report of Ayodhaya
8. On the other hand, two defence witnesses, namely Doctor Ajit
Kumar (D.W.-1) and Suresh Prasad (D.W.-2) have examined.
However, the following documentary evidence have been
adduced by defence:-
Exhibit-A-Injury report of Kedar Mahto
Exhibit-B-Certified copy of Khatiyan
Exhibit-C-Rent receipt
Exhibit-D-Certified copy of Complaint Case No.427/99
9. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court, after
considering the oral as well as documentary evidence available on
3
2026:JHHC:19693
record, has convicted and sentenced the appellants, as stated above,
which is assailed in this appeal.
Submissions on behalf of the appellants:-
10. Learned counsel for the appellants without touching the merits of
the judgment, has confined his argument to the question of
non-extension of benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders
Act, 1958. The appellants have been convicted and sentenced for the
offence under Sections 341, 323, 324 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and
maximum sentence awarded to them is R.I. for one year. It is submitted
that admittedly there was land dispute between the parties and the
occurrence took place suddenly due to ploughing of the field. It was
first offence of the appellants and they have never been convicted for
any other offence. The occurrence took place in the year 1999 and even
after conviction, the appellants have maintained peace and good
conduct and have been living normal lives. The learned Trial Court has
failed to record any special reasons for not extending the benefit of
Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the appellants to which
they deserve. Hence, the appellants may be granted the benefit of
Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act instead of directing for
substantive sentence of imprisonment as awarded by the learned Trial
Court.
Submissions on behalf of the State:-
11. On the other hand, learned Spl.P.P. has defended the impugned
judgment on merits but so far as the plea for extension of benefit of
Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act is concerned, no serious
objection has been raised.
4
2026:JHHC:19693
12. I have gone through the record of the case along with impugned
judgment and order of conviction and sentence in the light of the
contentions raised on behalf of both sides.
13. It appears that the occurrence arose out of a sudden dispute
relating to ploughing of the field. The occurrence does not appear to
have been the result of any prior planning or pre-arranged intention to
commit the alleged offence. It is also a fact that the appellants have
never been previously convicted for any other offence. The incident
was of the year 1999 and more than two decades have elapsed since
the date of commission of offence. It is also pleaded that during this
period the appellants have maintained peace and harmony and have
never been involved in any other criminal activities.
14. 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.
15. 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 appellants by
learned Trial Court, the appellants are hereby directed to be released
on furnishing bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) with one
surety of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court
under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 within two
5
2026:JHHC:19693
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.
16. If the bond is not furnished within above stipulated time, the
learned Trial Court shall issue notice upon the appellants to secure his
attendance for furnishing the bond.
17. 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.
18. Pending I.A(s), if any, stands disposed of.
19. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record be
sent back immediately to the court concerned for information and
needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
06.07.2026
Arpit
Uploaded on 08/07/2026
6
