Point of Law: Released on admonition - Conviction modified - Trial court convicted accused for offence under Ss. 323, 341 and 379 of IPC and released other convicts, except present petitioners, under Act, 1958 on admonition. Benefit were not extended to them due to reason that there was previous conviction of present petitioners under S. 323 IPC

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Heard Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2.

3. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party - State.

4. The present criminal revision application has been filed against the judgment dated 27.01.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No.133 of 2008 by learned District and Sessions Judge III, Ranchi, by which appeal preferred on behalf of the petitioners against the order of conviction and sentence dated 21.08.2008 passed in connection with Complaint Case No.15 of 1997 T.R. No.471 of 2008 has been dismissed. The petitioners have been convicted for offence under Sections 323, 341 and 379 of Indian Penal Code passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi.

The petitioners were sentenced for one-year simple imprisonment under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, 6 months simple imprisonment under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code and 15 days simple imprisonment under Section 341 of Indian Penal Code.

Arguments on behalf of the Petitioners

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners and others were convicted for offence under Sections 323/341/379 of Indian Penal Code along with other co-accused, but others were given benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and were released on admonition. So far as the present petitioners are concerned, similar relief was not granted on account of the fact that there was previous conviction of the present petitioners. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners and the complainant were on litigating terms and there have been criminal cases against each other and therefore the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that the present case arises out of a complaint case and accordingly there has been no investigation by the police and the witnesses are interested witnesses. He also submits that there is no injury report on record and the complainant had stated that on the date of occurrence, she was assaulted and suffered bleeding injury. Learned counsel also submits that considering the fact that the parties were already in litigating terms, the likelihood of false implication of the petitioners cannot be ruled out. He also submits that the maximum punishment which has been given in the instant case is for offence under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code for a period of one year and the only allegation is that the petitioners had snatched one silver chain from the neck of the complainant worth Rs. 1200/-.

6. The learned counsel submits that without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, the fact remains that the incident is of the year 1997 and at the time of conviction on 21.08.2008, the present petitioners were of the age of 48 years and 45 years of age and accordingly, their present age is 61 years and 58 years respectively. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners have faced the rigors of criminal case for a long time right from the year 1997 and accordingly, some sympathetic view may be taken and the sentence be modified. He also submits that the petitioners are also ready to pay some fine amount and no useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioners to jail for an incident which had taken place as back as in the year 1997.

Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 has vehemently opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and has submitted that the manner in which the present occurrence had taken place whereby the petitioners assaulted not only the complainant, but also her two daughters and also snatched one silver chain from the neck of the complainant, the impugned judgments of conviction and sentence of the petitioners do not call for any interference or any lenient view of this Court in the matter of sentence.

8. The learned counsel has submitted that the pe