The main legal point established is the applicability of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 in cases involving familial disputes and first-time offenders.

JUDGMENT :

PRADEEP KUMAR, J.

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Counsel for the state.

2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.10.2001 passed by Sri Amod Prasad Ram, Sessions Judge, Koderma in Sessions Trial No. 369 of 1995 by which judgment all the appellants have been convicted u/s 147 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year. Further, they are also convicted u/s 323 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellants that it will appear from the prosecution case that no assault was made with intention to cause the death of the informant and her husband and it was not believed by the trial court also and the trial court acquitted the appellants u/s 307, 448, 504 and 325 of the I.P.C. He has further submitted that there is a family dispute front before with regard to the partition of properties between the two families. They are agnates and offspring of the same family and some dispute took place. Accused party attempted for calling the village Sarpanch, Meghlal Sao-Appellant No. 4, who is dead now, but the prosecution instead of coming to a compromise and solution, falsely implicate the appellants Hence, the conviction of the appellants are bad in law and fit to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the state as also learned Counsel for the informant have submitted that the injured persons were medically examined and it will appear that the husband of the informant, P.W.1 received grievous injury and the trial court has rightly convicted the appellants and the judgment of the tried court requires no interference by this Court.

5. After hearing both the parties and after going through the evidences on record, I find that the prosecution case was started on the basis of the written report given by the informant, Vidya Devi (P.W.3) stating therein that when she was taking bath near the well in her house, then the accused-appellant, Govind Sao along with his wife came there and stared rebuking her asked her not take the bath in the well, then she asked them that they have closed the bathroom and latrine, in that situation, where will she go for bathing and he being her elder 'Bhaisur', should not come while she is taking bath. She made complaint to her husband and to her son. Thereafter, her husband and son came and objected, whereupon the son of accused-appellant, Govind Sao namely Kajendra Sao and Umesh Sao called the Sarpanch of the Village Tetariadih namely Meghlal Sao, who came along with Ramprakash Sao, Mahendra Sao, Nandlal Sao and Mahesh Sao, all resident of Domchanch. Thereafter, all of them assaulted her husband and son with fist and blows with in intention to cause the death the death of their only son, Sandeep Kumar. Other villagers came and saved their lives, then they filed this written report to the police.

6. On the basis of the said written report, police registered a case u/s 147/448/323/504 of the I.P.C. against the accused and after investigation submitted, charge sheet 147/323/325/307/448/504 of the I.P.C. Since, Section 307 I.P.C is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, Learned C.J.M committed the case to the court of Sessions Judge, Koderma who himself tried the case and found the appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid.

7. It appears that in course of examination the prosecution has examined 6 witnesses to prove its case.

P.W.1 is Laxami Narain Sao, Husband of the informant

P.W.2 is Sandip Kumar, son of the informant

P.W.3 is Vidya Devi, informant of the case

P.W.4 is Govind Sao, informant of the case

P.W.5 is Raj Kishore Singh, Investigating Officer of the case.

P.W.6 is Dr. R.K. Jamaiyar, who examined the husband of the informant.

8. It appears that in course of trial the informant, P.W.3, Vidya Devi, her husband-PW.1, Laxami Narain Sao and P.W.2, her son,