Jharkhand High Court
Krishan Kumar Deo @ Jhulan Deo S/O Raja … vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 July, 2026
2026:JHHC:19574
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 1419 of 2005
......
[Against the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence dated
14.11.2005, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge,
Deoghar in Sessions Trial No.217 of 1993/6 of 2005]
......
Krishan Kumar Deo @ Jhulan Deo S/o Raja Deo resident of
Sangram Lodiya, Mahatodih, P.S.-Jasidih, Subdivision & District
- Deoghar. ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Radheshyam Rawani, S/o Battu Rawani, R/o - Mauza-
Modidih, Udaipura, P.O. & P.S.-Jasidih, Dist - Deoghar.
... Respondents
......
For the Appellant : Md. Zaid Ahmed, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, A.P.P.
......
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
......
JUDGMENT
Dated – 03.07.2026
By Court:- Heard Md. Zaid Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant as well as Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment
and order of conviction and sentence dated 14.11.2005 passed
by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions
Trial No. 217 of 1993/6 of 2005, whereby and whereunder the
appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Section
Cr.A(SJ) No. 1419 of 2005 Page | 1
2026:JHHC:19574
324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for one year along with fine of
Rs.500/- with default stipulation.
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal, as emerging
from the fardbeyan of the informant Radhey Shyam Rawani
recorded on 03.11.1989 at Sadar Hospital, Deoghar, is that
while the informant along with his father was returning on
foot to village Sangramlorhiya Mahtodih, they were
intercepted near Satsang by four persons, out of whom three
were identified by the informant. It is alleged that the accused
persons surrounded and assaulted them, during which
accused Doman Rawani and Jhulan Deo, armed with
daggers, inflicted injuries upon the informant and his father.
It is further alleged that Doman Rawani dealt dagger blows
on the stomach and eye of the informant’s father, while
Jhulan Deo assaulted the informant on the left side of his
waist with a dagger. It is further alleged that co-accused
Pradeep Deo @ Khokhan Deo assaulted the informant with
slippers. On alarm being raised, local persons assembled at
the place of occurrence. The motive behind the occurrence is
stated to be a long-standing land dispute between the parties,
Cr.A(SJ) No. 1419 of 2005 Page | 2
2026:JHHC:19574
in connection with which the informant’s father had come to
attend court proceedings at Deoghar.
On the basis of above fardbeyan, Deoghar P.S. Case No.
214 of 1989 was registered for the offences under Sections 341,
323, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused
persons.
4. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was
submitted against the accused persons 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 324/34 and
307/34 of the I.P.C. against the accused persons which were
read over and explained to them for which they pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In the course of trial, altogether four witnesses were
examined and several documentary evidence were also
adduced by the prosecution.
6. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence
has been adduced by the defence.
7. After conclusion of trial, impugned judgment and order
has been passed which has been assailed in this appeal.
Cr.A(SJ) No. 1419 of 2005 Page | 3
2026:JHHC:19574
8. Learned counsel for the appellant 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 to the appellant. It is
submitted that appellant has been held guilty for the offence
under Section 324 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I.
for one year, the appellant has been granted provisional bail
by the learned Trial Court for one month which was
confirmed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 05.12.2005. This was appellant’s first offence and there
was land dispute between the parties, on the basis of that
name of the appellant has been implicated in this case. It is
further submitted that the learned Trial Court without
recording any special reasons has declined to extend the
benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the
appellant. It is further submitted that the age of the appellant
is more than 75 years. The prosecution has not been able to
brought on record any criminal history or previous
conviction of the appellant, therefore, the appellant is entitled
for the 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.
Cr.A(SJ) No. 1419 of 2005 Page | 4
2026:JHHC:19574
9. On the other hand, learned A.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, he has fairly admitted that it was
first offence of the appellant and there was no material on
record to establish his previous conviction, therefore,
appropriate order may be passed.
10. 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.
11. It appears that plea of first offence and no other
previous conviction taken by appellant at the time of hearing
on quantum of sentence, has been rejected by learned Trial
Court without recording any special reasons. It is also a fact
that the appellant has never been previously convicted for
any other offence. The incident was of the year 1989 and more
than three and a half decades has been elapsed since the date
of commission of offence and the appellant is more than 75
years of age. 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. I find
Cr.A(SJ) No. 1419 of 2005 Page | 5
2026:JHHC:19574
that the appellant also deserves the benefit of Section 4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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 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
Cr.A(SJ) No. 1419 of 2005 Page | 6
2026:JHHC:19574
be of good behavior for one year from the date of furnishing
the bond.
15. 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.
16. In case of violation of terms and conditions of the bond,
the learned Trial Court shall call upon the appellant to serve
the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to him.
17. The appellant is on provisional bail which was
confirmed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 05.12.2005, hence, he is discharged from the liability of
bail bond. The sureties are also discharged.
18. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
19. 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: 03/07/2026
Sachin / NAFR
Uploaded On: 06/07/2026
Cr.A(SJ) No. 1419 of 2005 Page | 7
