IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of considering probation for first-time offenders, prioritizing rehabilitation over punishment.

JUDGMENT :

Arun Dev Choudhury, J.

1. Heard Mr. B. M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. None appears for the respondent No. 2.

2. The present Crl. Rev. Petition is filed under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 assailing the Judgment and Order dated 17.01.2009 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalbari, in C.R. Case No. 425c/07, whereby the present petitioners were convicted under Sections 447/325/34 of IPC and were sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 500/-each for offence under Section 447 of IPC and in default Simple Imprisonment for 10 days. They were further sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 (two) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-and in default Rigorous Imprisonment of 15 days each under Section 325/34 of IPC.

3. Aforesaid judgment and sentence was challenged by the petitioners before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nalbari in Criminal Appeal No. 06/2009. The said appeal also met with the same fate, however, the learned Sessions Judge, Nalbari modified the judgment and order impugned whereby the accused petitioners were convicted under Section 323 of IPC and were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-in default to jail custody for 15 days. The aforesaid two judgments are challenged before this Court.

4. The prosecution story in a nutshell is that on 07.06.2007 at about 08:00 AM, when the complainant and her sister-in-law went to the paddy field to serve tea to her brother-in-laws, the accused persons had come there and surrounded the victim. When the complainant and her sister tried to stop the accused persons, they hit her with the handle of a spade and she fell down and as a result her left hand was injured. According to the informant, the accused persons also pushed the sister of the informant and tore her blouse. Accordingly, the complaint was filed before the learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalbari.

5. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalbari issue process, the accused appeared before the learned Magistrate on receipt of summons. Formal charges were framed under Section 447/325/323/34 of IPC, which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as four witnesses including the Medical Officer and the Investigating Officer. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused/petitioners did not adduce any evidence in their favour.

7. After appreciation of the evidence, the learned trial Court had convicted the petitioners as recorded hereinabove.

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

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

10. Mr. B. M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that he shall not challenge the impugned order of conviction on merit and shall confine his submission in the appeal only in respect of the order of sentence.

11. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel argues that the petitioner is entitled for benefit under Section 360/361 Cr.P.C. and under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1958) which had not been granted by both the learned Courts below. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel further submits that accused petitioners have not been convicted previously for any offence and they are first time offender.

12. The learned counsel further contends that the accused and the informant are villagers of the same village and admittedly there was a cross case and a civil suit was pending between the parties as regards ownership of the plot of land where the alleged offence was committed. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel further argues that PW-1 had admitted such position during her cross-examination.

13. According