SATISH SINHA SATISH KUMAR SINHA And ORS vs STATE OF JHARKHAND
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
2026:JHHC:14912
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.686 of 2009
……
[Against the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence dated
30.06.2009, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track
Court No.IV, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No.238 of 2005]
……
1. Satish Sinha @ Satish Kumar Sinha, son of Rabindra Sinha
2. Rabindra Sinha, son of Chandradeo Sinha
3. Sabitri Devi, wife of Rabindra Sinha
All are residents of Sakinan Egarkund, Mundaghora, P.O. & P.S.
Chirkunda, District Dhanbad. … Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … Respondent
------
For the Appellants : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Adv.
Ms. Ashwini Priya, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, A.P.P.
------
P R E S E N T
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
Dated - 14.05.2026
By Court:- Heard Ms. Ashwini Priya, learned counsel appearing
for the appellants as well as Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, learned
A.P.P. appearing for the State.
2. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the
appellants against the judgment and order of conviction and
sentence dated 30.06.2009 passed by learned Additional
Page | 1
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.686 of 2009
2026:JHHC:14912
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Dhanbad in Sessions
Trial No.238 of 2005, whereby and whereunder the appellant
No.1 Satish Sinha has been held guilty under Section 324 of
the I.P.C. and appellant No.2 Rabindra Sinha and appellant
No.3 Sabitri Devi has been held guilty under Section 323/34
of the I.P.C. and further all the accused persons were held
guilty under Section 341 of the I.P.C. Convict Sabitri Devi
(appellant No.3) was granted benefit of Probation of
Offenders Act by learned Trial Court and has been released
by entering into a bond (without surety) to maintain peace for
a period of one year. Convict Satish Sinha (appellant No.1)
was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for
two years along with fine of Rs.500/- for the offence
punishable under Section 324 of the I.P.C. and convict
Rabindra Sinha (appellant No.2) was sentenced to undergo
R.I. for six months for the offence punishable under Section
323 of the I.P.C. along with fine of Rs.500/- with default
stipulation. No separate sentence has been awarded under
Section 341 of the I.P.C.
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal as emerging
from the fardbeyan of the informant Vinay Ram is that on
Page | 2
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.686 of 2009
2026:JHHC:14912
26.04.2007, upon receiving information from his daughter
Rani Kumari that the accused persons had entered his house
armed with weapons and were hurling abuses, he
immediately rushed to the place of occurrence. There, he
allegedly found accused Rabindra Sinha and his son Satish
Chandra Sinha armed with garasa, while Sabitri Devi wife of
Rabindra Sinha was armed with lathi and all were abusing
his wife. It is alleged that when the informant protested,
Satish Chandra Sinha assaulted him with garasa causing
injury on his head and Rabindra Sinha inflicted garasa blow
on the waist of his wife causing injuries to her as well. It is
further alleged that Sabitri Devi assaulted the informant’s
wife with lathi and also snatched away her necklace and
earrings. The occurrence is stated to have arisen on account of
objection raised by the informant’s wife against gambling
activities of the accused persons on the previous day.
On the basis of above fardbeyan, Chirkunda P.S. Case
No.152 of 2004 was registered for the offences under Sections
452, 341, 323, 324, 307, 504, 379/34 of the I.P.C.
4. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was
submitted against the appellants for the offences under
Page | 3
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.686 of 2009
2026:JHHC:14912
Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 379, 504/34 and 452 of the I.P.C.
and accordingly, cognizance was taken and subsequently, the
case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were
framed under Sections 323, 324, 341, 307/34, 379/34, 504/34
of the I.P.C. against the appellants 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 six witnesses were
examined and several documentary evidences were also
adduced by the prosecution.
6. On the other hand, no oral evidence has been adduced
by the defence but several documentary evidences were
adduced.
7. After conclusion of trial, impugned judgment and order
has been passed which has been assailed in this appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants without touching the
merits of the judgment has confined herself towards the point
of non-extension of the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958 to the appellant Nos.1 and 2. It is further
submitted that the learned Trial Court has made a
discrimination while granting the benefit of Section 4 of the
Page | 4
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.686 of 2009
2026:JHHC:14912
Probation of Offenders Act to the female accused persons and
rejecting to the male accused persons only on the ground that
they are male. It was the first offence, as such, discrimination
is not warranted under law. The reason assigned by the
learned Trial Court for declining from extending the benefit
of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the
appellants is against the mandate of law and cannot be
categorized as special reasons. Hence, the appellant Nos.1
and 2 also deserve the same 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.
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 is
first offence of convicts as appears from the impugned
judgment, 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
Page | 5
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.686 of 2009
2026:JHHC:14912
impugned judgment and order along with materials available
on record.
11.
It appears that plea of first offence taken by appellants
at the time of hearing on quantum of sentence, has been
rejected by learned Trial Court only on the ground of being
male accused persons. One of the female accused namely
Sabitri Devi was given benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of
Offenders Act only on the ground of being a female. It is also
a fact that the appellants have never been previously
convicted for any other offence. The incident was of the year
2007 and near about two decades have been passed 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. I find that the appellant Nos.1 and 2 also
deserve 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.
Page | 6
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.686 of 2009
2026:JHHC:14912
13. 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 appellant Nos.1 and 2 also, for which the
appellant Nos.1 and 2 appear to be entitled, instead of
awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment. Since, the
appellant No.3 namely Sabitri Devi is already released on
entering into a bond, therefore, there is no need to execute a
bond by her.
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 Nos.1 and 2 by learned Trial Court, the
appellant Nos.1 and 2 are hereby directed to be released on
furnishing bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) each
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
Page | 7
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.686 of 2009
2026:JHHC:14912
maintaining peace and 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 Nos.1 and 2 to secure their 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 Nos.1
and 2 to serve the substantive sentence of imprisonment
awarded to them.
17. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
18. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court
record be sent back to the concerned Trial Court for
information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated: 14/05/2026
Sachin / NAFR
Uploaded On: 19/05/2026
Page | 8
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.686 of 2009