The court emphasized the necessity of considering the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 in sentencing, highlighting that sentencing should focus on reform rather than punishment.

JUDGMENT :

(Arun Dev Choudhury, J.)

1. Heard Mr. MH Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. KK Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.

2. The present application is filed assailing a judgment and order dated 15.12.2005 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bijni in CR case No. 393/2004 convicting and sentencing the petitioners to pay Rs. 500/-each in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 2 months each under Section 323/34 IPC.

3. Aforesaid judgment and sentence was challenged by the petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bongaigaon in Criminal Appeal No. 3(1)/2006 and the learned appellate court uphold the aforesaid judgment and order dated 15.12.2005 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bijni in CR case No. 393/2004.

4. The prosecution story in a nutshell is that the complainant Musstt. Rukia Khatoon filed a complaint case alleging, inter-alia, that on 30.12.2004, her son Rakibul Islam, who was a student of Class III of Nachankuri L.P. School, went to his school to collect rice as supplied by the Government to the L.P. School students. It is alleged that the Headmaster of the said school, namely, Md. Abdur Rahman Mandal refused to give him rice and then her son informed the matter to her. Accordingly, she rushed to the school and asked the Headmaster as to why he refused to give rice to his son. The Headmaster told her to stay in the school for some time and left the school by his motorcycle. After some time, the Headmaster along with his son, namely, Habib Mahammad Hamidul Haque came back and without any reason the son of the Headmaster started to abuse the complainant with filthy language and also started to assault her by his pant’s belt. It is also alleged that the Headmaster also assaulted her by the said belt and pushed her. As a result, she fell down on the floor thereby they outraged her modesty and also threatened her with injury.

5. The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bijni took cognizance of the offence under Sections 341/323/354/506/34 IPC against the accused / petitioners and issued process. The accused/ petitioners appeared before the learned Magistrate on receipt of summons. As they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the trial proceeded.

6. To bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as four witnesses including the complainant. The accused / petitioners were also 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 Additional Sessions Judge re-appreciated the evidence in details and came to the conclusion as recorded hereinabove.

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

10. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners, 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. Ahmed, learned counsel argues that the petitioners are 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. Ahmed, learned counsel further submits that accused petitioners have not been convicted previously for any offence and he is first time offender.

12. According to Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel though the learned trial Court ought to have considered granting benefit under the Act, 1958, however, same was rejected only on the consideration of the manner of commission of offence by the accused persons to the weaker section and poor and needy woman of the society and at the same time, the learned appellate court even did not consider grant of benefit to the petitioners.

13. It is fur