Muni Lal Hansda Vs State of Jharkhand

Heard Mr. Durga C. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Jitendra Pandey, Learned APP assisted by Mr. Kaushal Kishor Mishra, learned counsel for the informant.

¶15

This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 10.02.2005 passed in Sessions Case No. 390 of 1992 / 52 of 2002 by the learned 2^nd Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Jamtara whereby and whereunder both the appellants alongwith other co-accused persons have been convicted under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 324, 325, 307/34 & 308/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year each for the offences under Sections 147, 149 & 323 of the IPC, R.I. for two years each for the offences under Section 148 & 324 of the IPC, R.I. for one month each for the offence under Section 341 of the IPC, R.I. for three years each for the offences under Section 325 I.P.C. and R.I. for five years each for the offence under Sections 307 & 308 read with Section 34 of the IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶16

Factual Matrix

¶17

The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 21.07.1991 at about 5:00 PM the informant alongwith Sunil Murmu, Nutan Muni and Kolo Muni Murmu had gone to his paddy

¶18

2026:JHHC:10239

¶19

field at Talabahiyar. In the meantime, the appellants including coaccused persons surrounded the informant party and started assaulted them by lathi, due to which the informant party sustained injuries. The accused persons fled away after the occurrence. All the injured persons went their home and thereafter they proceeded to Nala Hospital on bullock-cart, they were medically treated.

¶20

On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, Nala (Bindapathar) P.S. Case No. 66 of 1991 for the offence under Section 147, 148, 341 & 308/34 of IPC was registered.

¶21

After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants including co-accused persons for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 325, 307 & 308 of IPC and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions, where Sessions Case No.390 of 1992 / 52 of 2002 was registered. The appellants have denied the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried.

¶22

It appears that altogether eight witnesses have been examined by the prosecution: -

¶23

P.W.-1	Nutan Mani Soren
P.W.-2	Sunil Murmu
P.W.-3	Katulal Murmu
P.W.-4	Turka Murmu
P.W.-5	Kolo Muni Murmu
P.W.-6	Jurga Murmu
P.W.-7	Dr. Shiv Shankar Harijan
P.W.-8	Md. Hussain Ali

¶24

On the other hand, two witnesses have been examined on behalf of defence and two documentary evidences have also been adduced on behalf of the defence, i.e., (i) Exhibit-A: F.I.R. in Sessions Case No. 53 of 2002 and (ii) Exhibit-B: Fardbeyan in Sessions Case No. 53 of 2002.

¶25

Submissions on behalf of the appellants

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellants without touching the merits of this judgment has submitted that both the appellants have been

¶27

2

¶28

2026:JHHC:10239

¶29

convicted and sentenced and directed to undergo maximum sentence of five years for the offences under Sections 307 and 308 read with Section 34 of the IPC. There was case and counter case between the parties. In the counter case alleged by the appellant that the informant party of this case were also held guilty for the offence under section 323 of the IPC and in their appeal, they have been granted benefit of Section 3/4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Therefore, the appellants also deserve the same. Moreover, the alleged occurrence is of the year 1991 and therefore, appellants have maintained peace and have settled in their life. Hence, the appellants may be extended benefit of Section 4 of probation of offenders Act.

¶30

Submissions on behalf of the State

¶31

On the other hand, learned APP assisted by learned counsel for the informant has defended the judgment of learned trial Court on merits but so far as extension of benefit of Probation of Offenders Act is concerned, they have no objection.

¶32

Analysis, discussions and reasons: -

¶33

It appears that the learned Trial Court has not recorded any reason for not extending the benefit of Section 3/4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the appellants. There was free fight between the parties and both the parties had sustained injuries. It was the first offence of the appellants, therefore, the appellants deserve the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act.

¶34

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction of the appellants is hereby upheld. Therefore, instead of undergoing substantive sentence awarded to the appellants, they shall appear before the learned trial court within two months from the date of this judgment and the learned trial court shall release the appellants under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 upon their furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) each with two sureties, subject to condition that the appellants shall maintain peace and good behavior for one year.

¶35

3

¶36

2026:JHHC:10239

¶37

In case of violation of terms and conditions of bond, the appellants shall be called upon to receive the sentence awarded to them. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence as stated above.

¶38

It is further clarified that if some delay occurs in furnishing the bond, the same may be extended by the learned trial court being satisfied with the reasons for delay in furnishing the bond.

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶42

09.04.2026

¶43

Rahul Uploaded on 16/04/2026

¶44

4

Muni Lal Hansda v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muni Lal Hansda 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

Munshi Mistry Vs State of Jharkhand

Satnam Singh Alias Sonu Sardar Vs State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Dinanath Mandal alias Dinesh Mandal And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Jharu Sikdar And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Anil Prasad Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand

Karbinder Kumar Alias Kabindra Kumar Alias Pravindra Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand