After A Land-Dispute Fight Left A Man With Leg Fractures, Jharkhand HC Upholds Three Convictions But Releases Appellants On 6-Month Probation

On 19 June 2018, a dispute over land between the appellants and the informant’s family resulted in injuries to the informant, her husband and daughter.

The prosecution alleged that the appellants assaulted them; medical evidence recorded fractures to the husband’s legs, while the injuries to the two women were assessed as simple.

The Sessions Court convicted the appellants under Sections 323/34, 324/34, 325/34, 506/34 and 341/34 IPC and imposed concurrent sentences, including seven years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 325/34 IPC.

The appellants challenged the conviction and sentence, arguing, among other things, that the injuries and fracture evidence were inconsistent and that the incident arose from a land dispute and free fight.

In the alternative, they sought release on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 permits a court, where an offender has been found guilty of an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, to release the offender on probation of good conduct instead of imposing an immediate sentence, if the court considers this expedient having regard to the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the offence and the offender’s character.

The release is subject to a bond to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period fixed by the court; the provision also requires consideration of any probation officer’s report.

The appellants’ convictions were for offences under Sections 323, 324, 325, 506 and 341 read with Section 34 IPC.

The Court acknowledged the land dispute, the parties’ relationship as agnates, the evidence of a free fight and discrepancies concerning the fracture evidence.

It nevertheless declined to disturb the conviction, finding that those circumstances did not justify appellate interference with the Sessions Court’s judgment.

On sentence, the Court considered that the injuries were not life-threatening, no dangerous weapon had been used, and a social investigation report had been produced.

In light of those circumstances, it found release under Section 4 appropriate.

Each appellant was directed to execute a bond for six months to maintain peace and good behaviour and to reside at the address stated in the bond.

The appeal and pending interlocutory applications were disposed of, and the appellants were directed to be released upon execution of the bond, unless required in another case.