NARESH MAHTO And ORS. vs STATE OF JHARKHAND

Court
Jharkhand High Court


2026:JHHC:26472

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 421 of 2009
--------
1. Ishwar Mahto, son of Bahadur Mahto
2. Dilip Mahto, son of Suresh Mahto
Both resident of Village-Manjura, P.S.-Kasmar, District-Bokaro
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
--------
For the Appellants : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate
Mr. Aditya Banerjee, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, A.P.P.
--------
JUDGMENT
nd
Dated: 02 September, 2026

By Court: Heard Mr. Atanu Banerjee , learned counsel for the appellants
and Mr. Bishambhar Shastri , learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. Originally, this appeal was filed by three appellants out of
them one appellant, namely Naresh Mahto has died during the
pendency of this appeal and his appeal was abated vide order dated
29.07.2026. The rest of the surviving appellants have been
renumbered.
3. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment
and order of conviction and sentence dated 18.04.2009, passed by
st
learned 1 Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat, in
Sessions Trial No. 10 of 2005 (arising out of Kasmar P.S. Case No.
15 of 20003 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 216 of 2003), whereby
and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for the offence
under Section 324/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for
three years.




2026:JHHC:26472
Factual Matrix
4. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal, as per written
report of the informant, Satish Kumar (P.W.3), is that on 29.03.2003,
at about 01:00 P.M., while the informant came out from his house to
urinate, in the meantime, accused Naresh Mahto and Ishwar Mahto
of his village suddenly came and caught him from behind and
forcibly put him on the ground. In the meantime, the third accused,
Dilip Mahto of his village came and struck him on the head with a
pointed rod, with intention to kill him. As a result, he sustained
bleeding injury to his head and became unconscious after raising an
alarm. On hearing of his cry, his mother, Savitri Devi (P.W.-1)
arrived and thereafter, the accused persons fled away. It is further
alleged that if his mother had not arrived, they would have killed
him. The motive behind the occurrence, as stated in the F.I.R., is that
the accused persons have committed the offence due to rivalry over
the contractorship of road.
On the basis of above written report, Kasmar P.S. Case No. 15
of 2003 dated 29.03.2003 was registered for the offences under
Sections 341, 324 and 307 of the I.P.C.
5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted
against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 447, 341,
326 & 307 of the I.P.C. and after taking cognizance the case was
committed to the Court of Sessions, where Sessions Trial No. 10 of
2005 was registered. The charges were read over and explained to
the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to

2




2026:JHHC:26472
be tried.
6. In the course of trial, altogether four witnesses were examined
by the prosecution apart from documentary evidence.
7. On the other hand, no oral evidence has been adduced by
defence. However, the defence has also adduced two documentary
evidences.
8. The case of defence is denial from occurrence and false
implication.
9. After conclusion of trial, the appellants were held guilty for
the offence under Section 324/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced as
stated above which has been 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 himself towards the point of non-
extension of the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders
Act, 1958 to the appellants. The appellants have been convicted and
sentenced for the offence under Sections 324/34 of I.P.C. and
maximum sentence awarded to them is R.I. for three years. It is
submitted that the appellants have been granted provisional bail by
the learned Trial Court which was confirmed by the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.05.2009. It is also 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 appellants. It is further submitted that this court
has already called for from the report of Probation Officer vide order

3




2026:JHHC:26472
dated 29.07.2026, wherein it has been mentioned that appellants are
leading their normal life and are not involved in any criminal
activities. The occurrence took place in the year 2003 and even after
conviction, the appellants have maintained peace and good conduct.
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 A.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.
Analysis, discussions and reasons:-
12. 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.
13. From perusal of the records, it appears that in order to
substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined altogether
four witnesses, out of which P.W.-1, Savitri Devi (mother of the
informant) and P.W.3, Satish Kumar (informant-cum-injured
witness) have proved the allegation. The evidence of doctor, namely
Krishna Kumar Jha (P.W.4), who has medically examined P.W.3,
Satish Kumar, has also proved the injury sustained by the informant.
Hence, the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable
under Section 324/34 of the I.P.C. is affirmed.

4




2026:JHHC:26472
14. It appears that plea of first offence and no other previous
conviction has been taken by appellants at the time of hearing on
quantum of sentence, but has been rejected by learned Trial Court
without recording any special reasons. It is also a fact that the
appellants have never been previously convicted for any other
offence. The incident is of the year 2003 and more than two decades
has been elapsed since the date of commission of offence. It is also
pleaded that the appellants in the aforesaid period have also
maintained peace and harmony and have never been involved in any
other criminal activities.
15. 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.
16. 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) each
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 months from the date of this order for maintaining peace

5




2026:JHHC:26472
and be of good behavior for one year from the date of furnishing the
bond.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. Pending I.A(s), if any, stands disposed of.
20. 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.)
02.09.2026
Arpit
Uploaded on 05/09/2026

6