The court upheld the conviction under IPC but granted probation due to the petitioner's status as a first-time offender, emphasizing the need for leniency in sentencing.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 30.01.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st, Deoghar in Cr. Appeal No. 46 of 2012, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.04.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Madhupur, Deoghar passed in G.R. No. 87 of 1999 arising out of Madhupur P.S. Case No. 41 of 1999, by which petitioner was held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 325 and 342 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years along with fine of Rs. 1000/-, for the offence under Section 325 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months for the offence under Section 342 I.P.C., with default stipulation, has been maintained and confirmed by the appellate court extending benefit of doubt to other co-accused persons / appellants.

3. The factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that on 02.03.1999 at about 12: 00 noon, the informant Shyam Lal Mandal was returning to his house from the pond after bathing the buffalos and when he reached near mill of Falguni Mandal (petitioner), meanwhile, Falguni Mandal (petitioner) and Arun Mandal surrounded him and when he started escaping, Binod Mandal, Tuntun Mandal and Parmod Mandal caught hold of him and Binod Mandal inflicted a farsa blow on his head caused grievous injuries and Falguni Mandal (petitioner) assaulted with an iron rod on his head and leg caused injuries near the elbow and right hand, due to which the informant fell down in unconscious state. The injured was brought to hospital and he was examined by Dr. Ramesh Kumar, who found following injuries on his person: Lacerated wound on left parietal bond size 10 Cm. X ½ Cm X Scalp Deep, Diffuse swelling of 3 Cm. Diameter, on left hand at the function of 2 / 3 and 1 / 3 of radial bone. X-ray was done and X-ray elicits fracture of radius and ulna bone and diffuse swelling of left leg 3 Cm, Diameter near ankle joint and X-ray elicits fracture in lower fibula and tribia.

4. On the basis of fardbeyan of informant, Madhupur P.S. Case No. 41 of 1999 was registered for the offence under Sections 341, 342, 307, 326, 325 / 34 of the I.P.C.

5. After conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted for the offences under Section 341, 323, 342 and 325 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. against five accused persons including the present petitioner. All the accused persons have faced trial and learned trial court has held the present petitioner guilty for the offence under Sections 325 and 342 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo as stated above.

6. Other co-accused persons namely, Binod Mandal, Pramod Mandal, Tuntun Mandal, Arun Mandal were held guilty for the offence under Sections 342 I.P.C. and instead of awarding them sentence for any substantive period of imprisonment, they were released after due admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

7. Thereafter, all the five convicts have preferred Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2012 and the learned appellate court vide judgment dated 30.01.2016 after reappraisal of oral and documentary evidence available on record upheld and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of petitioner Falguni Mandal for the offence under Sections 325 / 342 of I.P.C., but appellant nos. 2 to 5 were held not guilty for the offence under Section 342 of the I.P.C. and their conviction for the offence under Section 342 was set aside, which was never challenged by prosecution by filing any appeal. The sole convict Falguni Mandal has assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence in this revision.

8. This appeal has been admitted for final hearing vide order dated 25.04.2016 on limited question of quantum of sentence only.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the basis of similar evidence, co-accused persons have been given benefit of d