Krishan Kumar Deo  Jhulan Deo Vs State of Jharkhand

2026:JHHC:19574

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 1419 of 2005

……

[Against the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence dated 14.11.2005, passed by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Trial No.217 of 1993/6 of 2005]

¶5

……

¶6

Krishan Kumar Deo @ Jhulan Deo S/o Raja Deo resident of Sangram Lodiya, Mahatodih, P.S.-Jasidih, Subdivision & District – Deoghar. … Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand

¶9

Radheshyam Rawani, S/o Battu Rawani, R/o – MauzaModidih, Udaipura, P.O. & P.S.-Jasidih, Dist – Deoghar. … Respondents

¶10

……

¶11

For the Appellant : Md. Zaid Ahmed, Adv. For the State : Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, A.P.P.

¶12

……

¶13

P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶14

……

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Dated - 03.07.2026

¶17

By Court:- Heard Md. Zaid Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for

¶18

the appellant as well as Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶19

2. Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14.11.2005 passed by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Trial No. 217 of 1993/6 of 2005, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Section

¶20

Cr.A(SJ) No. 1419 of 2005

¶21

Page | 1

¶22

2026:JHHC:19574

¶23

324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for one year along with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation.

¶24

3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal, as emerging from the fardbeyan of the informant Radhey Shyam Rawani recorded on 03.11.1989 at Sadar Hospital, Deoghar, is that while the informant along with his father was returning on foot to village Sangramlorhiya Mahtodih, they were intercepted near Satsang by four persons, out of whom three were identified by the informant. It is alleged that the accused persons surrounded and assaulted them, during which accused Doman Rawani and Jhulan Deo, armed with daggers, inflicted injuries upon the informant and his father. It is further alleged that Doman Rawani dealt dagger blows on the stomach and eye of the informant’s father, while Jhulan Deo assaulted the informant on the left side of his waist with a dagger. It is further alleged that co-accused Pradeep Deo @ Khokhan Deo assaulted the informant with slippers. On alarm being raised, local persons assembled at the place of occurrence. The motive behind the occurrence is stated to be a long-standing land dispute between the parties,

¶25

Cr.A(SJ) No. 1419 of 2005 Page | 2

¶26

2026:JHHC:19574

¶27

in connection with which the informant’s father had come to attend court proceedings at Deoghar.

¶28

On the basis of above fardbeyan, Deoghar P.S. Case No. 214 of 1989 was registered for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons.

¶29

4. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences and accordingly, cognizance was taken and subsequently, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed under Sections 324/34 and 307/34 of the I.P.C. against the accused persons which were read over and explained to them for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶30

5. In the course of trial, altogether four witnesses were examined and several documentary evidence were also adduced by the prosecution.

¶31

6. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence.

¶32

7. After conclusion of trial, impugned judgment and order

¶33

has been passed which has been assailed in this appeal.

¶34

Cr.A(SJ) No. 1419 of 2005

¶35

Page | 3

¶36

2026:JHHC:19574

¶37

8. Learned counsel for the appellant without touching the merits of the judgment has confined himself towards the point of non-extension of the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the appellant. It is submitted that appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Section 324 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year, the appellant has been granted provisional bail by the learned Trial Court for one month which was confirmed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.12.2005. This was appellant's first offence and there was land dispute between the parties, on the basis of that name of the appellant has been implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court without recording any special reasons has declined to extend the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the appellant. It is further submitted that the age of the appellant is more than 75 years. The prosecution has not been able to brought on record any criminal history or previous conviction of the appellant, therefore, the appellant is entitled for the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act,

¶38

1958 instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment as granted by the learned Trial Court.

¶39

Cr.A(SJ) No. 1419 of 2005

¶40

Page | 4

¶41

2026:JHHC:19574

¶42

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 was first offence of the appellant and there was no material on record to establish his previous conviction, therefore, appropriate order may be passed.

¶43

10. I have given anxious consideration to the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of both side and also perused the impugned judgment and order along with materials available on record.

¶44

11. It appears that plea of first offence and no other previous conviction taken by appellant at the time of hearing on quantum of sentence, has been rejected by learned Trial Court without recording any special reasons. It is also a fact that the appellant has never been previously convicted for any other offence. The incident was of the year 1989 and more than three and a half decades has been elapsed since the date of commission of offence and the appellant is more than 75 years of age. It is also pleaded that the appellant in the aforesaid period has also maintained peace and harmony and has never been involved in any other criminal activities. I find

¶45

Cr.A(SJ) No. 1419 of 2005 Page | 5

¶46

2026:JHHC:19574

¶47

that the appellant also deserves the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

¶48

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.

¶49

13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of offence committed by the appellant, the genesis and manner of occurrence, age, antecedent and character of the appellant, 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, for which the appellant appears to be entitled, instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment.

¶50

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 by learned Trial Court, the appellant 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

¶51

Cr.A(SJ) No. 1419 of 2005 Page | 6

¶52

2026:JHHC:19574

¶53

be of good behavior for one year from the date of furnishing the bond.

¶54

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

¶55

16. In case of violation of terms and conditions of the bond, the learned Trial Court shall call upon the appellant to serve the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to him.

¶56

17. The appellant is on provisional bail which was confirmed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.12.2005, hence, he is discharged from the liability of bail bond. The sureties are also discharged.

¶57

18. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

¶58

19. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court record be sent back immediately to the concerned Trial Court for information and needful.

¶59

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶60

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 03/07/2026 Sachin / NAFR Uploaded On: 06/07/2026

¶61

Cr.A(SJ) No. 1419 of 2005

¶62

Page | 7

Krishan Kumar Deo Jhulan Deo v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishan Kumar Deo Jhulan Deo v. 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

Nago Yadav Vs State of Jharkhand

Ganesh Gope Vs State of Jharkhand

Indradeo Yadav Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Lala Vishwakarma Vs State of Jharkhand

Ravi Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ramesh Gope Vs State of Jharkhand