1. This appeal and this revision can be conveniently disposed of by this common judgment and order as both arise out of one and the same criminal case.

2. Sushil Sawant – the appellant, had filed a complaint against six persons (respondent nos.2 to 7 in the appeal) alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 504 IPC and Section 506 of IPC read with Section 34 IPC. After holding a trial, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dapoli, found all the accused guilty of offences punishable under Section 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 504 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. He sentenced the accused persons to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- on each of the said two counts. The Magistrate also directed compensation in the sum of Rs.10,000/- to be awarded to the appellant, from out of the amount of fine. Against their conviction and the sentences imposed upon them, the accused persons (respondent nos.2 to 7 in the appeal and applicants in the revision application) approached the Court of Sessions by filing an appeal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the appeal, came to the conclusion that the judgment and order of conviction, as recorded by the learned Magistrate was proper. He, however, was of the view that the accused persons deserved to be granted benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter ‘P.O. Act’ for brevity). He, therefore, set aside the sentence imposed upon them by the Magistrate, and ordered their release, on each of them executing bond of good behaviour for a period of one year, as contemplated under Section 4 of the P.O.Act. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Court of Sessions, granting benefit of the provisions of the P.O. Act to the accused persons, the appellant has approached this court by filing the present appeal. The accused persons, being dissatisfied by the order passed by the Sessions court, in so far as it maintained their conviction, as recorded by the Magistrate, have approached this court by filing the present revision. It is under these circumstances, that the appeal and the revision are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the appellant – who is the respondent no.1 in the revision application – shall hereinafter be referred to as ‘the complainant.’ Respondent nos.2 to 7 who are the applicant nos.1 to 6 respectively, in the revision application, shall hereinafter be referred to as ‘the accused.’ Whenever separate reference to a particular accused would be necessary, it would be made by mentioning his/her number as the accused in the in the original proceedings before the Magistrate.

4. I have heard Mr. Harish Bhadbhade, the learned counsel for the accused persons. I have heard Mr. G.V. Limaye, the learned counsel for the appellant. I have heard Mrs. M.R. Tidke, the learned APP, for the State. I have taken into consideration the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused persons.

5. The case of the complainant, as made out in the complaint and as put forth before the trial court, may in brief, be stated thus:

a) The complainant, at the material time, was residing at Dapoli with his parents, sister-in-law and niece, in a rented premises in a chawl. Smt.Nalini (accused no.3) was the owner of the said chawl, and thus, the landlady of the complainant. On 20th November 1994, the complainant, probably to level the ground, dug in the courtyard in front of his room. However, the complainant could not complete the work of leveling during the daytime and had to leave it incomplete at the end of the day, as it became dark. On the next day, at about 9.00 a.m., when the complainant was sitting in front of his room, Nalini and her son Vishnu (accused no.4) came there, abused the complainant and questioned him as to ‘why he had dug the ‘pit’ and ‘whether the place was belonging to his father.’