JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assisted by Ms. Chandana Kumari, Advocate.

2. Heard Mr. Tapas Roy, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.

3. The present criminal revision petition is directed against the Judgment dated 07.10.2013 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dumka in Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2011 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentences of the petitioners under Sections 148, 323, 447 and 385 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned trial court, but acquitted them from the charge under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and dismissed the criminal appeal with modification.

4. The learned trial court vide Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 17.12.2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka in P.C.R. Case No. 51 of 2005/T.R. Case No. 651 of 2011 had convicted the petitioners under Sections 148, 323, 447, 379 and 385 of the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 03 months each for the offence under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code, 6-6 months each for the offence under Section 148 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and 1-1 year each for the offence under Section 379 and 385 of the Indian Penal Code and had directed that all the sentences will run concurrently.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioners

5. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner while advancing his arguments submitted that the petitioners were convicted and sentenced under Sections 148, 323, 447, 379 and 385 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned trial court and the learned appellate court has confirmed their conviction and sentence under Sections 148, 323, 447 and 385 of the Indian Penal Code and has acquitted them from the charge under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. Learned Senior counsel submitted that the exhibits which were filed by the Complainant regarding the sale deed and title suit are subject matter of second appeal pending before this Court and there is land dispute between the complainant and the present petitioners. Learned Senior counsel further submitted that as per the evidence of P.W.-2, some construction work was going on in the house for which he was brining mud on the spot, but it cannot be said that the complainant was living in the said house. Learned Senior counsel also submitted that the complaint was filed without any appropriate affidavit and which is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Priyanka Srivastava and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others” reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287.

7. Learned Senior counsel further submitted that so far as offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is no medical report or injury report on record and there is no evidence that the hurt was caused by assault and accordingly, the basic ingredient for offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is not satisfied.

8. However, the learned Senior counsel also submitted that considering the nature of dispute between the parties and the fact that the present offence is the first offence of the petitioners, the learned courts below ought to have considered to give the relief under Section 3/4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioners and this aspect of the matter has not been properly considered by the learned courts below. Learned Senior counsel further submitted that the petitioners had surrendered on 07.12.2013 and they were granted bail by this Court vide order dated 13.12.2013 and their bail bonds were accepted on 17.12.2013 by the learned trial court and as such, the petitioners have remained in custody for 11 days during the pendency of this case. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the case, the sentences of the petitioners may be modified to some extent by imposing fines.

Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State

9. Learned A.P