Partly allowed

Bameshwar Raut And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 May 2026Cr.A(SJ)/1272/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against conviction under sections 147 and 324/149 IPC for an assault arising out of a village bridge contract dispute. The High Court upheld the conviction but extended the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, releasing the appellants on probation bonds.

What did the court decide?

Conviction upheld; substantive sentences set aside and appellants released under Section 4 Probation of Offenders Act on Rs.5,000 bond with one surety each, good behaviour for one year.

Bameshwar Raut And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

2026:JHHC:14465

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1272 of 2008

¶4

---------

¶5

Futeshwar Raut @ Football Raut @ Futeshaw RAut

¶6

Santosh Raut

¶7

Both sons of Bameshwar Raut

¶8

Supari Raut

¶9

Rajender Raut

¶10

Gajadhar Raut

¶11

All son of Late Rameshwar Raut

¶12

Kisan Raut, S/o- Supari Raut

¶13

All residents of village-Damosingha, P.S.-Jarmundi, Dist. Dumka

¶14

… … Appellants

¶15

Versus

¶16

The State of Jharkhand …. Respondent

¶17

---------- For the Appellants : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P.

¶18

---------

¶19

PRESENT

¶20

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT

¶21

-----------

¶22

Dated: 11^th May, 2026

¶23

Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.P.P.

¶24

A counter affidavit submitted at Bar by Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned

¶25

A.P.P. is accepted. Let the same be kept on record.

¶26

It is to be mentioned at the very outset that the present appeal was filed by seven accused persons, out of them, appellant No.1, Bameshwar Raut has been died. Therefore, this appeal is abated so far as the appellant No.1 is concerned. The names of surviving appellants, Futeshwar Raut @ Football Raut @ Futeshaw Raut, Santosh Raut, Supari Raut, Rajender Raut, Gajadhar Raut and Kisan Raut have been

¶27

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1272 of 2008

¶28

2026:JHHC:14465

¶29

renumbered and this appeal is heard on behalf of the aforesaid alive appellants.

¶30

The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 19.09.2008 and order of sentence dated 20.09.2008 passed by the learned 5^th Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Dumka in Sessions Case Nos.76 of 2007 arising out of Jarmundi P.S. Case No.245 of 2005 corresponding to G.R. No.1258 of 2005, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for the offences under sections 147, 149 and 324 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years each for the offence under section 147 of IPC and further undergo R.I. for 2 years each for the offence under sections 324/149 of IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶31

Factual Matrix:-

¶32

Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 12.10.2005 at about 8:15 pm, the informant went to drop his cousin, Maharaj Raut off at his house and after dropping him when the informant was returning to his house, all the accused persons, namely, Futeshwar Raut, Santosh Raut, Bameshwar Raut, Supari Raut, Rajendar Raut, Gajadhar Raut, Kisan Raut and Kongress Pd. Rai having armed with lathi, rods, bicycle chains and other deadly weapons have emerged from the ambush before the informant and started assaulting him and caused head injury due to which he became unconscious. Upon raising hulla of the informant , his

¶33

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1272 of 2008

¶34

¶35

2026:JHHC:14465

¶36

uncle, namely, Banku Raut and his son Maharaj Raut rushed towards him and tried to save him but all the accused persons assaulted both of them brutally as a result of which, his uncle became unconscious and fell down. When he regained consciousness, he found himself in PHC, Jarmundi. The only reason behind the dispute is contract work of a bridge in his village.

¶37

On the basis of aforesaid information, Jarmundi P.S. Case No.245 of 2005 was instituted for the offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 325 and 307 of IPC. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the appellants and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions where Sessions Case No.76 of 2007 was registered. The appellants have denied the charges leveled against them and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of the trial, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants was passed, which has been assailed in this appeal.

¶38

Prosecution has examined altogether 10 witnesses in this case and several documentary evidences have also been adduced.

¶39

On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. The case of defence is denial from occurrence and false implication due to village politics.

¶40

Submission on behalf of appellants:-

¶41

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1272 of 2008

¶42

¶43

2026:JHHC:14465

¶44

Learned counsel for the appellants without touching the merits of the judgment has confined himself on the point of extension of benefit of section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the appellants to which they deserve. It is further submitted that there was an exchange of assault from both sides in which both the parties have sustained injuries. The injuries sustained by the injured persons are found to be simple in nature, which has also been corroborated by the injury report. For the same occurrence, a case and counter case has been filed between the parties. It is further submitted that it was the first offence of the appellants and they have never been convicted in any other case. Hence, the appellants deserve the benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

¶45

Submission on behalf of the State:-

¶46

10.On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has defended the judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants on merits but so far extending the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act is concerned, it is fairly admitted that it was the first offence of the appellants, hence, they deserve the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act.

¶47

Analysis, Reasons and Decision:-

¶48

11.I have given anxious consideration to the genesis, manner and place of occurrence. It appears that the dispute has broken out between the parties due to contract work of a bridge in the village and there was a

¶49

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1272 of 2008

¶50

¶51

2026:JHHC:14465

¶52

case and counter case between the parties. The injuries sustained by the informant as well as the uncle of the informant, namely, Banku Raut were found to be simple in nature, which has also been corroborated by the injury report. The occurrence is of the year 2005 and more than two decades have passed. The appellants have been denied the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 without recording any special reasons by the trial court, to which the appellants are entitled.

¶53

12.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 appellants, for which the appellants appear to be entitled, instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment.

¶54

13.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 appellants by learned Trial Court, the appellants is hereby directed to be released on furnishing bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five Thousands) 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

¶55

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1272 of 2008

¶56

¶57

2026:JHHC:14465

¶58

from the date of this order for maintaining peace and be of good behavior for one year from the date of furnishing the bond.

¶59

If the bond is not furnished within above stipulated time, the learned Trial Court shall issue notice upon the appellants to secure their attendance for furnishing the bond.

¶60

In case of violation of terms and conditions of the bond, the appellants shall be called upon to receive the sentence already awarded to them.

¶61

16.Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly.

¶62

17.Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record be sent back immediately to the concerned trial court for compliance.

¶63

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶64

Pappu /-

¶65

11/05/2026

¶66

Uploaded On 15/05/2026

¶67

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1272 of 2008

¶68

Bameshwar Raut And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bameshwar Raut And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Kumar Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rameshwar Rai And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Rajendra Uraon Vs State of Jharkhand

Rahul Vishwakarma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhuneshwar Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashok Yadav And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand