Munilal Marandi And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

By Court: It is pertinent to mention at the very outset that original petitioner no. 1 namely, Munilal Marandi has died during pendency of this criminal revision and the revision on his behalf has been abated vide order dated 19.11.2024.

¶14

2. Heard learned counsel for the surviving petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.

¶15

3. The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 07.06.2016 passed by learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dumka in Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2010, whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.02.2010 passed by

¶16

Page 1 of 6

¶17

2026:JHHC:16869

¶18

learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Dumka in G.R. No. 119 of 1994 / T.R. No. 13 of 2010, whereby the learned trial court has held the petitioner along with co-accused Munilal Marandi (since deceased) guilty for the offence punishable under Section 452/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one and half years and fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation.

¶19

4 . Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the mother of the informant Rosini Marandi has been given some lands by her mother in village – Bhoktadih, where her parents are residing by constructing a building and also cultivate the land, but his maternal uncle Munilal Marandi wants to grab the aforesaid land granted to his mother. On 05.02.1994, Munilal Marandi came to his village and was organizing a meeting in the house of Madhusudan Rana against him. When the informant crossing from the house of Madhusudan Rana, Munilal Marandi started abusing him and also gave threatening that he will get share in the aforesaid land and also threatened the informant to kill him. On that very night at about 2:00 A.M., 3-4 persons came to his house. They opened the door by pushing it and they were searching the informant. The accused persons abused his parents and also beaten them by slaps. At that time, he was sleeping in the room situated at western side and he heard the noise of accused persons

¶20

Page 2 of 6

¶21

2026:JHHC:16869

¶22

and also identified their voices. His parents also identified the accused persons in the light of “Dibri”. The accused persons namely, Munilal Marandi, Suresh Marandi and Madhusudan Rana came to his house. They were armed with lathi and danda. Another accused person could not be identified. On hearing noise, villagers namely, Raja Ram Kisku, Anil Kisku, Dewan Kisku came. Thereafter, the accused persons fled away.

¶23

5. On the basis of fardbeyan of informant namely, Shivlal Baskey, FIR was registered against the accused persons for the offence under Section 452 of the I.P.C. and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted, cognizance was taken and charge was framed on 06.02.2001 against the accused persons for the offence under Section 452/34 of the I.P.C. which was read over and explained to them, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶24

6. In the course of trial, altogether 04 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Apart from oral evidence, following documentary evidence were also adduced:-

¶25

Exhibit- 1 : Signature of the informant in the written fardbeyan.

¶26

7. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 was recorded. The case of defence is total denial from the allegation and plea of innocence.

¶27

Page 3 of 6

¶28

2026:JHHC:16869

¶29

8. After conclusion of trial, the learned trial court found and held the petitioner guilty for the offence under Sections 452/34 of I.P.C. and sentenced as stated above.

¶30

9. The aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Trial Court was challenged by the petitioner in Criminal Appeal No. 23/2010 before the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dumka, but the same has been dismissed, which has been assailed in this revision.

¶31

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner instead of challenging the impugned judgments and order on merits has confined himself to extend the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, which has not been considered by the learned trial court as well as by the learned appellate court and without recording any special reasons, the learned court below has awarded substantive sentence of imprisonment of one and half years against the petitioner along fine of Rs. 500/-.

¶32

11. It is further submitted that admittedly there was land dispute between the parties, therefore, the petitioner is implicated in this case. There is simple allegation of assault by lapad-thapad to the informant. It is also alleged that the accused persons were having lathi danda, but no injury report has been brought on record. Petitioner has never been convicted for any other offence

¶33

Page 4 of 6

¶34

2026:JHHC:16869

¶35

and the case is of the year 1994. It was first offence of the petitioner, but the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court without recording any special reasons has denied the extension of provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders’ Act, 1958 to the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner may be extended benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act.

¶36

12. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has defended the impugned judgments and order on merits, but raised no serious objection on the point of extending the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the petitioner.

¶37

13. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the offence for which the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced, the genesis and manner of occurrence, age, antecedent and character of the petitioner, I am of the considered view that both the trial court as well as the appellate court have failed to record any special reason for not extending the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the petitioner instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment, for which the petitioner appears to be entitled.

¶38

14. In view of the above, this criminal revision is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence to the extent that instead of undergoing substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the

¶39

Page 5 of 6

¶40

2026:JHHC:16869

¶41

petitioner by learned Trial Court, the petitioner is hereby directed to be released on furnishing bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) 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 maintaining peace and be of good behavior for one year from the date of furnishing the bond.

¶42

15. 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.

¶43

16. In case of failure of terms and conditions of the bond, the petitioner shall be called upon to receive the sentence already awarded to him.

¶44

17. Pending I.A. if any stands disposed of.

¶45

18. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent to the court concerned for information and needful.

¶46

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶47

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated : 10/06/2026 Sunil/-NAFR Uploaded On : 12 /06/2026

¶48

Page 6 of 6

Munilal Marandi And Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munilal Marandi And Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravi Chaurasia Vs State of Jharkhand

Upendra Prasad And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Masoamt Amita Chakraborty Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arjun Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Waris Hussain Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sumeshwar Mahto 7 Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand