Partly allowed

Bahadur Yadav And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC6 Apr 2026Cr.A(SJ)/1347/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against conviction of family members for rioting and assault arising from a land dispute; main accused convicted under section 307 IPC died. Conviction upheld but sentences modified: appellants to be released on admonition under section 3 Probation of Offenders Act.

What did the court decide?

Conviction upheld; sentences modified — appellants to appear before trial court within two months and be released after admonition under section 3 Probation of Offenders Act.

Bahadur Yadav And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

2026:JHHC:9862

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OFJHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1347of 2007

¶4

---------

¶5

1.Bahadur Yadav, son of Late Sohar Yadav

¶6

Sohwa Devi, wife of Ishwar Yadav

¶7

Ram Sahay Yadav, son of Ishwar Yadav

¶8

Dhaneshwari Devi, wife of Bahadur Yadav All residents of Village-Chiglabar, P.O.-Chiglabar, P.S. & Dist.Koderma ……Appellants

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State of Jharkhand …. Respondent --------- For the Appellant : Mr. Sahil, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P.

¶11

----------PRESENT

¶12

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

¶13

Dated:06^th April, 2026

¶14

Heard Mr. Sahil, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P.

¶15

It is to be mentioned at the very outset that the present appeal was filed by five accused persons, out of them, appellant No.5, Ishwar Yadav has been died. Therefore, this appeal is abated so far as the appellant No.5 is concerned. The names of surviving appellants, Bahadur Yadav, Sohwa Devi, Ram Sahay Yadav and Dhaneshwari Devi have been renumbered and this appeal is heard on behalf of the aforesaid alive appellants.

¶16

The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 22.09.2007 and order of sentence dated 27.09.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koderma in S.T. No.551 of 2003 arising out of Koderma P.S. Case No.267 of 2001, whereby and whereunder the appellant Nos.1 and 3 have been held guilty for the

¶17

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1347 of 2007

¶18

2026:JHHC:9862

¶19

offences under sections 147 and 323 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year each under section 147 of IPC and for 6 months each under section 323 of IPC. Further, the appellant Nos.2 and 4 have been held guilty for the offence under section 147 of IPC and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year each. Further deceased appellant No.5 has been held guilty for the offence under sections 147, 323 and 307 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years for the offence under section 307 of IPC and one year for the offence under section 147 of IPC. However, no sentence has been imposed in respect of section 324 of IPC.

¶20

Factual Matrix:-

¶21

Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 06.07.2001 at about 5:30 pm, while the informant was engaged in sowing the marua and maize seeds in his Bari, all the above named appellants forming an unlawful assembly came to him and forbade him to do so. Upon his protest, the accused persons started assaulting the informant. The accused, Ishwar Yadav gave a bhala blow over the head of the informant causing head injuries. It is further alleged that the accused, Bahadur Yadav and Ram Sahay Yadav assaulted the informant by means of lathi and the accused, Sahwa Devi and Dhaneshwari Devi also assaulted the informant with bricks and stones resulted him to back and leg injuries.

¶22

¶23

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1347 of 2007

¶24

2026:JHHC:9862

¶25

On the basis of aforesaid information, Koderma P.S. Case No.267 of 2001 was instituted for the offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307 and 337 of IPC. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions where S.T No.551 of 2003 was registered. The appellants have denied the charges leveled against them and claimed to be tried.

¶26

Prosecution has examined altogether 7 witnesses in this case and several documentary evidences have also been adduced.

¶27

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 land dispute.

¶28

Submission on behalf of appellants:-

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the main assailant, appellant No.5, Ishwar Yadav has been died, who was convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 307 of IPC. So far the appellant Nos.1 to 4 are concerned, they have been held guilty for the offences under sections 147 and 323 of IPC alone and maximum sentence of one year imprisonment has been awarded to them. It is admitted fact that it is the appellants’ first offence, which happened due to land dispute at the spur of moment without any pre-meditation. Learned trial court without recording any specific reasons for not extending the benefit of

¶30

3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1347 of 2007

¶31

2026:JHHC:9862

¶32

Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 has awarded substantive sentence of imprisonment. The appellants deserve benefit of section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act. Hence, an appropriate order may be passed.

¶33

Submission on behalf of State:-

¶34

Learned A.P.P. for the Stated has defended the judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants for the offences under sections 147 and 323 of IPC on merits. But he has fairly admitted that it was appellants’ first offence and they have not been granted the benefit of section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act.

¶35

Analysis, Reasons and Decision:-

¶36

10.In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, since learned counsel for the appellants without touching the merits of the judgment has confined himself towards the grant of benefit of provision of Probation of Offenders Act, therefore, I have gone through the impugned judgment passed by learned trial court and it appears that at the point of hearing on sentence, specific plea was taken by the appellants that it was the first offence of the appellants, hence, they may be released on giving benefit of Probation of Offenders Act or under section 360 of Cr.P.C.

¶37

11.The learned trial court without recording any special reasons has awarded substantive sentence of imprisonment to the appellant. Since, the main accused/appellant, who was convicted for the offence under section 307 of IPC has been died and his appeal has been abated, the 4

¶38

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1347 of 2007

¶39

2026:JHHC:9862

¶40

other appellants appeared to be entitled for the benefit of section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act.

¶41

12.In view of the above facts and circumstances, the conviction of the appellants is hereby upheld but their sentence is modified to the extent that they shall appear before the learned trial court within two months from the date of this judgment and the learned trial court shall release them after due admonition as per section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence as stated above.

¶42

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

¶43

14.Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.

¶44

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶45

Pappu /-

¶46

06/04/2026

¶47

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1347 of 2007

¶48

Bahadur Yadav And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bahadur Yadav 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

Jhariya Nagesiya Vs the State of Jharkhand

Uttam Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Dinesh Kumar Choudhary Alias Dinesh Choudhary Vs the State of Jharkhand

Parmeshwar Thakur And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Anil Kumar Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Khushbu Devi Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.