The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a reasoned decision and consideration of the nature of the offense and character of the offenders before extending the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act.

ORDER :

Criminal Revision No.1210 of 2015 has been preferred by the accused/convicts against the judgment dated 26.06.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No.39 of 2010.

2. Nitesh Kumar Mishra, Madan Mohan Tiwary and Basant Tiwary were convicted and sentenced to S.I for six months under section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and S.I for one month under section 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code by the judgment dated 19.01.2010 in G.R. Case No.1283 of 2005/Tr. Case No.333 of 2010.

3. The appeal preferred by Nitesh Kumar Mishra against the judgment of his conviction in Tr. Case No. 333 of 2010 was allowed. Criminal Appeal No.39 of 2010 qua the appellant, namely, Madan Mohan Tiwary and Basant Tiwary was partly allowed and their conviction under section 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code was set-aside. Further, these convicts were granted benefit under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and the appellate Court directed their release instead of requiring them to serve the sentence on their furnishing bond of Rs.5,000/- each and on the condition to maintain peace and good behaviour for one year.

4. Criminal Revision No.1751 of 2017 has been filed by Binod Lodhi on whose written complaint Sonari P.S. Case No.58 of 2005 was lodged against Madan Mohan Tiwary, Basant Tiwary, Nitesh Kumar Mishra and Brij Kumar Mishra. This petitioner is aggrieved of the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.39 of 2010 by which Nitesh Kumar Mishra has been acquitted and the Criminal Appeal qua Madan Mohan Tiwary and Basant Tiwary has been partly allowed.

5. Since both the criminal revision petitions arise out of a common judgment dated 26.06.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No.39 of 2010, these revision petitions are heard together and disposed of by the present order - for the sake of convenience the petitioners in Criminal Revision No.1210 of 20 15 shall be referred to as "accused" and in Criminal Revision No. 1751 of 2017 as "informant".

6. Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for the accused submits that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence and the allegation of sudden provocation is patently absurd. The accused who suffered injury at the hands of the prosecution party and in the incident teeth of Madan Mohan Tiwary were broken have instituted a counter case which would itself show that the accused were falsely implicated in this case. The learned counsel would further submit that the ingredients of section 323 of the Indian Penal Code are not made out and while so the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2010 is liable to be set-aside.

7. Ms. Rishi Bharti, the learned counsel for the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 1751 of 2017 has relied on the judgment in "Public Prosecutor v. Nalam Suryanarayana Murthy" 1973 Cri. LJ 1238 and MCD v. State of Delhi and Anr.'' (2005) 4 SCC 605, to contend that benefits under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act cannot be given to an accused on mere asking.

8. On the basis of a written complaint of Binod Lodhi, a First Information Report was lodged on an allegation that the accused armed with iron rod and bhujali assaulted Nawal Lodhi, Binod Lodhi and Ramsila Devi and caused injuries to them. On completion of the investigation in Sonari P.S. Case No.58 of 2005 which was registered under sections 323, 341, 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code, finding a prima-facie case against the accused a charge-sheet was submitted for the offence under sections 323 and 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Madan Mohan Tiwary, Basant Tiwary and Nitesh Kumar Mishra have faced the trial for committing the aforesaid offences - one of the accused, namely, Brij Kumar Mishra has absconded. In the trial, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses out of whom five are the eyewitnesses. PW2-Nawal Lodhi, PW4-Binod Lodhi and PW5-Ramsila Devi are the injured eyewitnesses. In a criminal trial an injured witness is accorded a special status for the reason that his evidence lends insurance to the Court that he being an injured person was present at