TINKU PANDEY vs STATE OF JHARKHAND
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
2026:JHHC:26605
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 761 of 2009
--------
Tinku Pandey, S/o. Sri Sarbanand Pandey, R/o. Vill.- Pratappur, P.O.
& P.S.- Tundi, Dist.- Dhanbad, Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand …… Opp. Parties
--------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
--------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl.P.P.
nd
Dated: 2 September, 2026
By Court:-
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned
Special P.P.
2. Instant Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment
dated 22.05.2009 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in
Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 2006, whereby and whereunder the learned
Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner
against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
st
07.03.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 Class, Dhanbad
in G.R. Case No. 1944 of 1997 / T.R. No. 163 of 2006, whereby and
whereunder the petitioner has been held guilty for the offences under
Sections 379, 427, 428 & 448 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo
R.I for 6 months under Section 379 of the I.P.C., R.I. for 3 months
under Sections 427; R.I. for 3 months under Section 428 of the I.P.C.
and R.I. for one month under Section 448 of the I.P.C. All the
sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Factual Matrix:-
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that on the
2026:JHHC:26605
intervening night at 9/10.06.1997 at 2:00 am, the accused had entered
into the house of the informant with the intention of stealing goats and
untied two goats and also tried to take third goat. The Informant wake
up and raised alarm, but due to light of the torch focused on her face
by one accused, the informant could not see the accused and the
accused jumped over through the window. On alarm, the neighbours
reached there and saw that one goat was killed by severing the neck
resulted to loss of Rs. 2000/-. On 10.06.1997, the informant went to
Tundi police station to register a case, but the police called the
accused for compromise by paying the price of goats and the accused
agree to pay but even after 10-12 day, when the price of goat was not
paid, the informant filed an application before Superintendent of
Police, Dhanbad but the police did not register the case and then filed
complaint case.
4. On the basis of above complaint, the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Dhanbad directed the police station under Section 156(3)
of the Cr.P.C. to register a case and subsequently, F.I.R. was instituted
being Tundi P.S. Case No. 36 of 1997 for the offences under Sections
379, 427, 428 & 448 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused
persons.
5. After investigation, the police submitted its charge-sheet and
charges were framed against the accused persons for the aforesaid
offences.
6. Charges were read over in Hindi and explained to the accused
persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
2 | P a g e
( Cr. Revision No. 761 of 2009)
2026:JHHC:26605
7. The learned trial court after considering the oral as well as
documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution and after hearing
the parties, found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Sections
379, 427, 428 & 448 of the I.P.C and sentenced them accordingly.
8. Against the above judgment of conviction and sentence, the
petitioner alongwith deceased petitioner preferred an appeal bearing
Cr. Appeal No. 58 of 2006, wherein the learned Appellate Court
affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the
learned trial court. In the instant revision, the petitioner has challenged
the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 2006.
9. In the Course of Trial, prosecution has examined altogether five
witnesses. Apart from the oral evidence, following documentary
evidence has been adduced by the prosecution:-
I. Ext. 1- Signature of informant on letter to S.P., Dhanbad.
II. Ext. 2- Signature of informant on complaint petition.
Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner:-
10. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner without entering
into the merits of the judgment has confined himself towards the
quantum of sentences awarded to petitioner. It is further submitted
that allegation against the petitioner is for stealing of goat by entering
into the house of the informant. The informant woke up and raised
alarm. On her alarm the people of locality gathered there but the
accused had managed to take way two goats. It is further submitted
that for the alleged occurrence, a compromised was also held in the
police station. It is admitted fact that it was the first conviction of the
petitioner. It is further submitted that no previous offence has been
3 | P a g e
( Cr. Revision No. 761 of 2009)
2026:JHHC:26605
attributed against him. The learned Trial Court has failed to record any
special reasons while declining from granting benefit of Section 4 of
the Probation of Offenders Act. The learned Trial Court has not taken
into consideration the aim and object of Probation of Offenders Act.
The prime objective of which is the reformation of the first offenders.
Therefore, the petitioner deserves the benefit of Section 4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act.
Submissions on behalf of the State:-
11. On the other hand, learned Special P.P. has defended the
impugned judgment on merits, but so far extending the benefit of
Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act is concerned, he has fairly
admitted that from the impugned judgment, it appears that it was the
first offence of the petitioner. It is further submitted that there is
concurrent finding of guilt of the petitioners recorded by the learned
Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court. Therefore, the
revision is fit to be dismissed, but so far first offence of the petitioner
is concerned, in the factual aspect of the case, appropriate order may
be passed.
Analysis, discussion and reasons:-
12. I have gone through the record of the case alongwith the
impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned
Trial Court as well as by the learned Appellate Court.
13. It appears that there is concurrent finding of both the courts
below that the prosecution has been successfully able to establish the
guilt of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 379,
427, 428 & 448 of the I.P.C. Lalita Devi, the Informant of this case,
4 | P a g e
( Cr. Revision No. 761 of 2009)
2026:JHHC:26605
who has been examined as PW-3 has supported the case and alleged
that at about 2:00 A.M., she woke up on the sound of bleating of
goats. She saw the accused persons opening the rope of the goats and
taking away her goats. She identified them in torch light. The oral
testimony of PW-3 has also been corroborated by the evidence of
other witnesses. They have also corroborated the manner of
occurrence and place of occurrence. The judgment of convictioin
passed by the learned Trial Court and upheld by the learned Appellate
Court appears to be correct legal and proper, requires no interference
on merits by way of this revision.
14. So far non-extension of the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation
Officers Act is concerned, it appears from the record that the learned
Trial Court has declined to grant the benefit of Section 4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act considering the gravity of the offence
committed by the accused persons.
15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, genesis
and manner of occurrence and also considering that it was the first
offence of the petitioner, his age, antecedents and character, I am of
the view that the petitioner deserves the benefit of Section 4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act .
16. In view of the above, this revision is dismissed on merits with
modification in sentence to the extent that instead of undergoing
substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner by the
learned Trial Court, the petitioner is hereby directed to be released on
furnishing bonds of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) with one
surety of like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court under
5 | P a g e
( Cr. Revision No. 761 of 2009)
2026:JHHC:26605
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.
17. If the bond is not furnished within above stipulated time, the
learned Trial Court shall issue notice upon the petitioner to secure his
attendance for furnishing the bond.
18. In case of violation of terms and conditions of the bond, the
petitioner shall be called upon to receive the sentence already awarded
to him.
19. In view of above discussion and reasons, impugned judgment
of the Court below is upheld on merits but with modification in
sentence to the extent as mentioned above.
20. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands disposed of.
21. Let a copy of this order/judgment alongwith the trial court
records be sent back to the concerned court immediately for
information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
Dated: 02.09.2026
Rahul-NAFR
Uploaded on 07/09/2026
6 | P a g e
( Cr. Revision No. 761 of 2009)