Allowed¶24

Mohan Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Compounding of offence – Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.90 of 2025

Jharkhand HC7 Jul 2026Cr.A(SJ)/90/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi; quashing of conviction and sentence on compounding/joint compromise; Sections 143, 323, 325, 506 & 34 IPC; Section 325 IPC — five years RI plus Rs.5000/- fine each; denial of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 benefit at trial; land dispute between agnates; sudden scuffle; grievous injury by hard and blunt substance; I.A. No.14998 of 2025; Mohanpur P.S. Case No.107 of 2018; S.T. No.225 of 2019; Additional Sessions Judge-III, Deoghar; discharge from bail bonds; Rajesh Kumar, J.; decided 07.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

Dispute compounded; judgment of conviction dated 08.01.2025 and order of sentence dated 10.01.2025 quashed and set aside; criminal appeal disposed of; appellants discharged from their bail bonds; I.A. No.14998 of 2025 disposed of. ¶24

Mohan Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:JHHC:20024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.90 of 2025

¶3

¶4

Mohan Yadav aged about 47 years son of Late Mahadeo Mahto

¶5

Kishore Yadav aged about 49 years, son of Late Khublal Yadav

¶6

Vishwanath Yadav aged about 65 years son of Late Khublal Yadav

¶7

Ramakant Yadav aged about 29 years son of Khiro Yadav

¶8

Umakant Yadav aged about 30 years son of Bishwanath Yadav

¶9

Rajesh Yadav aged about 33 years son of Kishore Yadav

¶10

Above S. Nos.1 to 6 residence of Harodih, P.O.-Mohanpur, P.O.Raghunathpur, District – Deoghar. …. …. Appellants

¶11

Versus

¶12

The State of Jharkhand

¶13

Gopal Yadav, son of Raj Kumar Mahto, R/o Village Harodih, P.O.+P.S.Mohanpur, District – Deoghar. …. …. Respondents

¶14

¶15

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶16

---For the Appellants : Mr. Lalit Yadav, Adv. For the State : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, A.P.P. For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, Adv. ----

¶17

11/Dated: 07^th July, 2026

¶18

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Respondent No.2.

¶19

2. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction dated 08.01.2025 and the order of sentence dated 10.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Deoghar, in Sessions Trial No.225 of 2019, arising out of Mohanpur P.S. Case No.107 of 2018, whereby the appellants have been held guilty and convicted for the offence under Sections 143, 323, 325, 506 & 34 of the IPC and have been maximum sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence under Section 325 of IPC along with fine of Rs.5000/- to each convicts and in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment of six months to each convicts.

¶20

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants had also claimed the benefits of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 before the trial court however, the same was denied. It is further submitted that in the present appeal, I.A. No. 14998 of 2025 has been filed enclosing a joint compromise,

¶21

2026:JHHC:20024

¶22

stating that the offences for which the appellants have been convicted are compoundable with the permission of this Court.

¶23

4. It has further been submitted that the parties are agnates and the alleged occurrence arose out of a land dispute, during which a sudden scuffle took place between them but no life-threatening injury was caused to the informant, and the grievous injury was allegedly caused by a hard and blunt substance. Learned counsel further submits that better sense has prevailed and with the intervention of the family members, the parties have amicably resolved their dispute and have decided to compound the case. The parties are present before this Court and, upon a specific query, have admitted that the occurrence took place due to a land dispute between them.

¶24

5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, particularly the fact that the parties have voluntarily and genuinely entered into a compromise with a view to maintaining peace and harmony in the family as well as in the neighbourhood, the matter is hereby compounded. Consequently, the judgment of conviction dated 08.01.2025 and the order of sentence dated 10.01.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Deoghar in S.T. No.225 of 2019, are hereby quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal stands disposed of.

¶25

6. Since the appellants are already on bail, they are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds.

¶26

7. The interlocutory application being I.A. No.14998 of 2025 stands also disposed of.

¶27

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶28

Dated: 07^th July, 2026 Amar/Uploaded on 09.07.2026

¶29

Page | 2

¶30

Cri. App. (S.J.) No.90 of 2025

Mohan Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Yadav 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

Subhash Chandra Behra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prashant Kumar Sahay @ Prashant Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Karma Kachhap Vs State of Jharkhand

Kaili Devi Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Binod Manjhi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jainul Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand