IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that proper consideration under the Probation of Offenders Act is essential, especially for first-time offenders in non-heinous cases.

JUDGMENT :

Arun Dev Choudhury, J.

1. Heard Ms. P Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. B Sarma, learned Addl. PP, Assam and Mr. D Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

2. The present criminal revision petition is filed assailing the judgment and order dated 09.03.2010, passed in GR Case No.16/2009 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Golaghat convicting the accused petitioner under section 341/342/325/354 IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default simple imprisonment for 15 days and also RI for one month for offence under section 342 IPC and also RI for three months under section 354 IPC and RI for one year and fine of Rs.500/- under section 325 IPC.

3. The further challenge is the appellate judgment passed in Crl. Appeal No.14/2010 dated 03.07.2013 whereby, the learned Sessions Judge, Golaghat modified the judgment and sentence by maintaining the sentence under section 341/342 IPC and acquitting him from the charges under section 354 IPC and altering conviction under section 325 IPC to under section 323 IPC. The sentence was accordingly modified to imprisonment for three months with fine of Rs.500/-.

4. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that on 04.01.2009 at around 4.30 pm, when the mother of the informant, namely, Geeta Das (victim) was on her way back home from the paddy field, the petitioner herein, Sri Ratun Bhuyan, assaulted her by means of a bamboo stick when her mother, resulting in fracture of her right hand.

5. To bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses including the Medical Officer and the Investigating Officer. The accused was 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 himself as DW-1.

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 and modified the sentence.

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

9. Ms. P Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that she is not arguing the matter on merit of the conviction and shall confine her submission in the appeal only in respect of the order of sentence.

10. The learned counsel contends that the accused appellant has not been convicted previously for any offence and he is a first time offender. According to her, the accused and the petitioner are neighbours and the dispute arose out of some previous litigations between them. 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, no reason has been cited and proper considerations were also not made for grant or rejection of benefit of such beneficial legislation.

11. According to the learned counsel, the accused is having a right of consideration under the Act, 1958 and therefore, the right of the petitioner has been violated. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, 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 appellants and the Trial court has not given any special reason in the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence for not giving benefit of such provision.

12. Mr. Chakrabarty, learned counsel appearing for the informant submits that it is an admitted position that both the accused and the victim are neighbours, and that there were some litigations between them earlier 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 petitioner is c