BIRENDRA KUMAR YADAV ALIAS BIRENDRA YADAV ALIAS PAPPU YADAV vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

2026:JHHC:32426
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 756 of 2026
-----
[ Against the judgment of conviction dated 21.07.2026 and order of
sentence dated 24.07.2026 passed in Sessions Trial No. 56 of 2019 arising
out of Thakurgangti P.S. Case No. 29 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No.
957 of 2018 by the learned Sessions Judge, Godda .]
-----
1. Birendra Kumar Yadav @ Birendra Yadav @ Pappu Yadav, aged about
42 years, S/O Sri Ramdeo Yadav;
2. Sunil Kumar Yadav @ Sunil Yadav @ Sunil Kumar, aged about 45
years, son of Sri Ramdeo Yadav;
3. Shila Devi, aged about 33 years, wife of Sunil Kumar Yadav @ Sunil
Yadav @ Sunil Kumar.
All resident of village & P.O.- Chapri, P.S.- Thakurgangti, District-
Godda. …… Appellants
Versus


1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sushila Devi, W/o Sikandra Yadav, R/o village- Chapri, P.O. & P.S.
Thakurgangti, District Godda. …... Respondents

Present
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

For the Appellants : Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Pragati Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, A.P.P.
For the Victim : Ms. Kavita Kumari, Advocate
------
By Court
1. Heard Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the
appellants; Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, learned A.P.P. and Ms. Kavita, learned
counsel for the victim.
2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction
dated 21.07.2026 and order of sentence dated 24.07.2026 passed in
Sessions Trial No. 56 of 2019 arising out of Thakurgangti P.S. Case No.
29 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No. 957 of 2018 by the learned Sessions
Judge, Godda, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been
convicted for the offence under Sections 323/34, 324/34, 325/34, 506/34
& 341/34 of the I.P.C. and accordingly sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7
years along with a fine of Rs. 1000/- each for the offence under Section
325/34 of I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine S.I. for 3 months; R.I.



1 Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 756 of 2026

2026:JHHC:32426
for one year along with a fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offence under
Section 323/34 of I.P.C and in default of payment of fine further S.I. for 7
days; S.I. for 1 month along with a fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offence
under Section 341/34 of I.P.C. with default sentence of S.I. for seven days ;
R.I. for 5 years along with a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence under
Section 506/34 of I.P.C. and in default S.I. for 3 months and R.I. for 3
years along with a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence under Section 324/34
of I.P.C. and in default further S.I. for 1 month. All the sentences were
directed to run concurrently.
3. The prosecution story in brief is that, the informant, namely,
Sushila Devi on 19/06/2018 at about 2:00P.M., had come to her field for
weeding out the grass and about 03:45 P.M, accused, Birendra Yadav and
his brother, Sunil Yadav having "Sabbal" and "Kachiya" in their hands
came there and stated that why she had come there as this land belongs to
them. She replied that the land belongs to her and she is cleaning grass.
Meanwhile both of them started abusing, and assaulted her with intention
to kill her, then she fell down on land. On hulla her husband and daughter
came to rescue her. Accused Birendra Yadav took sabbal in his hand and
assaulted her husband on his leg. When her daughter tried to save him,
then Sunil Yadav by kachiya assaulted her daughter with intention to kill
her to which she sustained injury on her hand. Sila Devi came there and
assaulted by a stick "Paina" to them. In the meantime, villagers came there
and by seeing them all the accused, fled away from there and came to the
police station and thereafter she referred to hospital for treatment.
4. On the basis of written statement of the informant Thakurgangti
P.S. Case No- 29/2018 dated 20.06.2018 under Sections- 341, 323, 324,
307, 504 & 506/34 of IPC has been registered against the against the
accused persons namely, (1) Birendra Yadav (2) Sunil Yadav & (3) Shila
Devi and after completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer has
submitted the charge-sheet for the offence u/ss.- 341, 323, 324, 325, 307,
504 & 506/34 of IPC against the accused persons namely (1) Birendra
Yadav @ Pappu Yadav (2) Sunil Yadav @ Sunil Kumar & (3) Shila Devi.
Thereafter the cognizance has been taken on 17.11.2018, against the



2 Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 756 of 2026

2026:JHHC:32426
accused persons. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The
charge has been framed under Sections: - 341/34, 323/34, 324/34, 325/34,
307/34 & 506/34 of IPC against the accused persons on 12.03.2019
namely, (1) Birendra Yadav @Pappu Yadav (2) Sunil Yadav@ Sunil
Kumar Yadav & (3) Shila Devi and the same was read over and explained
to them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined
altogether ten witnesses and their depositions, in short, are as follows:
(I) P.W.1 Kedarnath Anand is an independent witness and he has
deposed that on 19.06.2018, at about 4:00–4:30 P.M., while returning from
Barahat, he saw Birendra Yadav holding an iron rod and Sunil Yadav
holding a stick, assaulting Sikandar Yadav, resulting in fracture of his leg.
He further stated that Sunil's wife assaulted Sushila Devi with a knife
when she came to rescue her husband. In cross-examination, he has
admitted the existence of a land dispute between the parties and stated that
more than 100 persons had gathered at the place of occurrence.
(II) P.W. 2 Shrawan Oraon is a hearsay witness.
(III) P.W.3 Mukesh Sah has been declared hostile.
(IV) P.W.4 Munilal Mandal is also a hearsay witness.
(V) P.W.5 Sushila Devi is the informant/ injured of this case and she
has deposed that while cleaning her roadside land along with her husband,
accused Birendra Yadav have objected to the same and assaulted her
husband with a rod, causing fractures in his legs. When her daughter Sanju
Devi came to rescue him, Sunil Yadav assaulted her with a spade, while
Shila Devi assaulted Sushila Devi with a stick, causing injuries to her hand
and leg. In cross-examination, she has stated that she and the other injured
persons remained admitted in Godda Hospital for five days. She has also
stated that they are Gotiyas to each other.
(VI) P.W. 6 Chamari Yadav is the I.O. of this case and he has
investigated in the matter. He has proved the endorsement on the written
report as Exhibit-1 and the formal FIR as Exhibit-2. He has stated that he
recorded the informant's statement, inspected the place of occurrence, and
submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons. In cross-



3 Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 756 of 2026

2026:JHHC:32426
examination, he has admitted the existence of a land dispute, his inability
to identify the disputed land by plot number and the fact that a counter-
case had been filed, which was not mentioned in the case diary.
(VII) P.W.7 Dr. Dilip Kumar Choudhary is the doctor who has treated
the victims. He has deposed that he has examined Sikandar Yadav and
found fractures of the left fibula and right tibia, both grievous in nature.
He also examined Sushila Devi and Sanju Devi, whose X-rays report
revealed no bony injury, and opined their injuries to be simple. He proved
four X-ray plates as Prosecution Exhibit No. 04. In cross-examination, he
has stated that Sikandar's injuries were grievous but not dangerous to life
and could also be possible due to fall on a hard surface.
(VIII) P.W.8 Sikandra Yadav is an injured and also husband of the
informant and he has deposed that the occurrence had taken place about
4–5 years ago, at around 3–4 P.M., when he along with his wife Sushila
Devi and daughter Sanju Devi, had gone to sow seeds in their field. The
accused persons opposed them and assaulted them, causing fracture of his
leg and cut injuries to Sushila Devi and Sanju Devi with a Hasua . In his
cross examination he has stated that there is a land dispute between the
parties.
(IX) P.W.9 Sanju Devi is an injured and daughter of the informant and
she has deposed that while she, her father and mother had gone to the field
for sowing seeds, Birendra Yadav and Sunil Yadav assaulted her father
with a sabbal, causing fracture of his leg. When she and her mother came
to rescue him, the accused persons assaulted them with a kachiya, causing
injuries to their hands. She further stated that all three injured persons were
initially treated at Thakurgangti Hospital and thereafter referred to Godda
Hospital for further treatment. In her cross examination she has stated that
there is a counter case filed against them by accused Shila Devi. She has
also admitted of land dispute between the parties.
(X) P.W.10 Dr. Kumar Vivekanand is a medical witness and he has
deposed regarding the medical examination conducted by Dr. Chandra
Shekhar Azad at Hari Devi Referral Hospital, Thakurgangti, on
19.06.2018. Sushila Devi was found to have a sharp-cutting injury over



4 Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 756 of 2026

2026:JHHC:32426
her left arm, swelling over her left ankle and right side of her neck, along
with pain all over her body. She was referred to Sadar Hospital, Godda,
for further treatment and medical opinion.
6. Referring to the above evidence and other evidence brought on
record, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has made the
following submission: -
i) P.W. 1- Kedarnath Anand is not an eye witness to the incident and
he has simply stated that there is a land dispute.
ii) P.W. 2- Shrawan Oraon is a hearsay witness and he has not
disclosed that who has informed him regarding the incident and he
has also stated that there is a partition dispute between the parties.
iii) P.W. 3 Mukesh Sah has been declared hostile.

iv) P.W.4- Munilal Mandal is also not an eye witness rather he has
stated that there is a case and counter-case between the parties.
v) P.W.5- Sushila Devi is the wife of one of the victim and informant
of the case. She has supported the incident and has stated that there
is a property dispute and there is a case and counter-case between
the parties. She has stated that both the leg of her husband has been
broken. She has also stated regarding the use of sharp-cutting
weapon upon her daughter.
vi) P.W.6- Chamari Yadav is the I.O. and only relevant statement made
by him is with regard to the case and counter-case between the
parties and further fact that the injury report has been obtained on
04.07.2018 while the incident is of 19.06.2018.
vii) P.W. 7 Dr. Dilip Kumar Choudhary is a medical witness whose
testimony shows that the female victims have suffered no bone
injuries, and he has admitted that the male victim's fracture could
have been caused by a simple fall on a hard surface.
viii) P.W. 9 Sanju Devi is an injured eyewitness who claims to have
suffered an injury from a sharp-cutting weapon, and she has
admitted that there is a long-standing land dispute between the
parties.
ix) P.W.10- Dr. Kumar Vivekanand is the doctor who has also treated



5 Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 756 of 2026

2026:JHHC:32426
the victims. Comparing his injury report with the P.W.7, the fracture
occurred does not tally.
x) Further, it has been submitted that the initial report does not suggest
any fracture rather the place of injury is also different. Even the date
of X-ray Report has not been brought on record. Referring to the
above discrepancy, it has been further submitted that there is an
exaggeration in the injury and report as the injuries are simple in
nature and the previous injury has not been proved.
xi) It is a family dispute with regard to land and there was free fight
between the parties and both the parties are agnates. No dangerous
weapon has been used and the injuries caused are not life
threatening.

7. On the above basis, it has been submitted that the conviction under
Sections 323/34, 324/34, 325/34, 506/34 & 341/34 of the I.P.C. is bad in
law. Therefore, either the appellants should be acquitted or they should be
given the benefit of provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and to
that effect I.A. No. 15629 of 2026 has been filed by the appellants praying
therein for extending the benefit of Section 3 and 4 of the Probation of
Offenders Act to them.
8. Learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of
conviction and submitted that there is fracture of bone and as such the
injuries are grievous in nature and therefore, the appellant should not be
extended the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act.
9 . Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act reads as under:
“4. Power of Court to release certain offenders on probation of
good conduct
. - (1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an
offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the
Court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having
regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the
offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release
him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything
contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Court
may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct
that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without
sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during
such period, not exceeding three years, as the Court may direct, and



6 Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 756 of 2026

2026:JHHC:32426
in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour:
Provided that the Court shall not direct such release of an
offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any,
has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over
which the Court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is
likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond.
(2) Before making any order under sub-section (1), the Court
shall take into consideration the report, if any, of the probation
officer concerned in relation to the case.
(3) When an order under sub-section (1) is made, the Court may,
if it is of opinion that in the interests of the offender and of the public
it is expedient so to do, in addition pass a supervision order
directing that the offender shall remain under the supervision of a
probation officer named in the order during such period, not being
less than one year, as may be specified therein, and may in such
supervision order impose such conditions as it deems necessary for
the due supervision of the offender.
(4) The Court making a supervision order under sub-section (3)
shall require the offender, before he is released, to enter into a bond,
with or without sureties, to observe the conditions specified in such
order and such additional conditions with respect to residence,
abstention from intoxicants or any other matter as the Court may,
having regard to the particular circumstances, consider fit to
impose for preventing a repetition of the same offence or a
commission of other offences by the offender.
(5) The Court making a supervision order under sub-section (3)
shall explain to the offender the terms and conditions of the order
and shall forthwith furnish one copy of the supervision order to
each of the offenders, the sureties, if any, and the probation officer
concerned.”
10 . From the evaluation of the evidences available on record, this Court
finds that there was a free fight between the parties. There is discrepancy,
so far as fracture of bone is concerned, as not been shown by the earlier
doctor, but what ever may be the fact, there was a free fight and both
parties have sustained injuries.
11 . Considering the above fact and the materials available on record, I
am not inclined to interfere with the judgment of conviction dated
21.07.2026 passed in Sessions Trial No. 56 of 2019 arising out of
Thakurgangti P.S. Case No. 29 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No. 957 of
2018 by the learned Sessions Judge, Godda.
12 . So far as sentencing part is concerned, the maximum punishment
awarded to the appellant is R.I. for 7 years. The parties are agnates and
there was a land dispute between the parties and further neither any



7 Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 756 of 2026

2026:JHHC:32426
dangerous weapon has been used nor the injuries sustained are life
threatening.
13 . Considering the above fact and also the social investigation report,
which has been produced by the learned A.P.P., this Court is of the view
that the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958
shall be extended to the appellants. Accordingly, the benefit of Section 4
of the Probation of the Offenders Act is hereby extended to the appellants.
14 . All the aforesaid appellants are directed to execute a bond for 6
months to maintain peace and good behavior and they should reside at the
address as disclosed in the bond.
15 . With the above benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958
being extended to the appellants, the present criminal appeal is hereby
disposed of. Pending I.A.s are also disposed of.
16 . The aforesaid appellants are directed to be released forthwith on
execution of the bond, if not wanted in any other case. Needless to say, all
the benefits as are applicable under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958
shall be available to the appellants.


(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
th
Dated, the 5 November, 2026
A. Mohanty


Uploaded on ……/…. /2026





8 Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 756 of 2026