IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of considering the rehabilitative purpose of sentencing under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, especially for first-time offenders.

JUDGMENT :

Arun Dev Choudhury, J.

1. Heard Mr. K Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B Sarma, learned Addl. PP, Assam.

2. The present criminal revision petition is filed assailing the judgment and order dated 22.04.2013, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.39(S-3)/2012, arising out of GR Case No.100/2016, under sections 447/323/324/326/34 IPC, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge though set aside the conviction of the petitioner for offence under section 324/326/34 IPC passed by the learned JMFC, Biswanath Chariali but conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial court to the petitioners under sections 447/323/34 IPC was upheld.

3. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that on 21.02.2006 one Bipul Behera son of Sutku Behera of village Amjarani under Gohpur PS lodged an FIR alleging that all the FIR names accused came to their house with Dao and Lathi in their hands and beaten him along with his family members and caused injury.

4. On receipt of the FIR, Gahpur PS Case No.28/06 under sections 447/323/34 IPC was registered and on completion of the investigation the I/O submitted charge sheet against the accused persons under section 447/323/324/326/34 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses including the Medical Officer and the Investigating Officer. The accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. In his 313 statement, the accused had denied the incriminating materials found against him and wished to adduce evidence and examined two defence witness on their behalf.

6. After appreciation of the evidence, the learned trial court had convicted the petitioner as recorded hereinabove.

7. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge re-appreciated the evidence in details and came to the conclusion as recorded hereinabove.

8. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the present revision petition is preferred by the petitioner.

9. M. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, submits that he is not arguing the matter on merit of the conviction and shall confine his submission in the appeal only in respect of the order of sentence.

10. The learned counsel contends that the accused petitioners have not been convicted previously for any offence and they are a first time offender. According to him, the informant and the petitioners are residents of same village and the dispute arose out of demand of a twenty rupees. Therefore, in the aforesaid backdrop, the learned trial court ought to have considered granting benefit of provision of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1958) to the accused, however, the learned court rejected to grant the benefit of Act, 1958 to the petitioners considering the nature and gravity of offence.

11. According to the learned counsel, the accused are having a right of consideration under the Act, 1958 and therefore, the right of the petitioners have been violated. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Appellate Court did not invoke the provisions of the Act, 1958 nor the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C while sentencing the accused petitioners.

12. Mr. Sarma, learned Addl. PP appearing for the State submits that it is an admitted position that the accuseds’ and the victim are residents of same village, and that there were some dispute between them and the issue of the fight was also very trivial in nature. Therefore, in his usual fairness he submits that he had no objection if the case of the petitioners are considered under the Act, 1958 by upholding the decision passed by the learned court’s below.

13. The learned Addl. PP Mr. B Sarma, further submits that the accused are having a valuable right for proper consideration under the Act, 1958, however, the learned Trial court has mechanically rejected such prayer taking note of th