The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's decision to affirm the guilt of the petitioners for certain offences under the Indian Penal Code, set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence under a specific section, and extend the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the petitioners.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the parties.

2. The petitioners namely Dayal Dhobi, Mahesh Dhobi @ Mahesh Rajak and Naresh Dhobi @ Naresh Rajak have preferred this appeal against the Judgment dated 16.12.2015 passed by Sri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Fast Track Court, Bermo at Tenughat in Criminal Appeal No.68/2008, whereby and wherein, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bermo at Tenughat affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Sri Rajesh Shrivastava, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Bermo at Tenughat in connection with Nawadih P.S Case No.28/2005, corresponding to G.R No.268/2005, holding the petitioners guilty for the offences under Sections 341/34, 323/34, 324/34, 325/34, 427/34 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby, sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days for the offence under Section 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code, simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, simple imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code, simple imprisonment for one and half years for the offence under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code, simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 427/34 of the Indian Penal Code and simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. Prosecution case was instituted on the basis of a written report of the informant, Sona Ram Dhobi, alleging therein that on 04.04.2005 at about 8:00 A.M, the petitioners started demolishing his wall, when he protested, the petitioners abused him and assaulted him by lathi. When his wife Rupa Devi, daughter-in-law Sabitri Devi and grand-son came to his rescue, they were also assaulted.

4. Both the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioners.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. P.W.8 Sona Ram Dhobi being the informant of this case has supported his case as made out in the written report and has stated that all the three petitioners namely Dayal Dhobi, Mahesh Dhobi @ Mahesh Rajak and Naresh Dhobi @ Naresh Rajak were demolishing his wall. When he protested, they assaulted him by lathi and Axe. When his wife, daughter-in-law and Ghanshayam Rajak came to his rescue, they were also assaulted. P.W.1 Rupa Devi the wife of the informant; P.W.2 Sabitri Devi the daughter-in-law of the informant and P.W.3 Ghanshayam Rajak all have corroborated the ocular account of the informant, Sona Ram Dhobi P.W.8 that on 04.04.2005 at about 8:00 A.M, the petitioners were demolishing his wall and when he protested, the informant Sona Ram Dhobi P.W.8, Rupa Devi P.W.1, Sabitri Devi P.W.2 and Ghanshayam Rajak P.W.3 were assaulted by these petitioners.

6. Dr. Narendera Bhadani, P.W.9 had examined the injured witnesses. He found the following injuries on their persons: -

(i). Swelling and tenderness of dorsum of left hand and little finger with depression of proximal phalane of little finger.

(ii). Bruise 1 ½” x 1/2” on left shoulder.

(iii). Abrasion 1/2” x ¼” on posterior surface of left forearm in middle.

(iv). Abrasion and swelling and tenderness on forehead in middle near hairline.

The injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance. Injury Nos. (ii), (iii) & (iv) according to the doctor were simple in nature caused within 6-12 hours of the examination. The doctor further on the basis of X-ray report pertaining to the injured Ghanshyam Rajak had opined that the Injury No.1 was grievous in nature.

On examination of Triveni Rajak, he observed as under:

(i). A lacerated wound 1 ¼” x 1/8” x skin deep on right eyebrow.

(ii). Abrasion: 1 ¼” x ½” on lateral side of posterior surface of right elbow.

(iii). Abrasion: 3/4” x ½” on right knee.

(iv). Abrasion two in number: 1” x 3/4”