Court allows probation post-conviction, confirming the necessity for rehabilitative over punitive measures in light of societal integration and absence of criminal records.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The present Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellants assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.04.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rairangpur, Mayurbhanj in S.T. Case No. 31/151 of 2000 arising out of G.R. Case No.173 of 1999 (T.C. No.1190 of 1999) convicting them under Sections 148/452/332/324/149 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo R.I. for a further period of fifteen days on each count. The sentences were directed to run consecutively.

2. Heard Mr. Satyabrata Mohapatra, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Ashok Kumar Apat, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

3. The narrative of prosecution report in the present case is that the informant Prasanta Kumar Sahoo lodged a written report alleging therein that on 26.5.99 he was the B.D.O. of Bahalda Block. On that day at about 8.10 A.M. when he was discharging his official duties in his office chamber, at that time all the accused persons forcibly and without his permission entered into his office chamber and questioned him as to why the Gramika Pratinidhi was selected at village Jharadihi. Before giving any answer, all the accused persons dealt fist blows, slaps on his body and by means of one sharp edged stone assaulted on his head. By this, he sustained severe bleeding injuries on his head and the accused persons were also attempted to kill him. When the Block Officials came to the spot, at that time, the accused persons went away by a jeep. Soon-after the occurrence, the informant lodged the report at Bahalda Police Station and thereafter the O.I.C., Bahalda P.S. registered the P.S. Case No.33/99 under Sections 147/148/452/332/307/149 IPC.

4. On the basis of the aforementioned allegations, investigation was conducted and charge sheet was filed against the appellants and on their stance of complete denial and claim for trial, they were put to trial on the charges, as mentioned above.

5. In order to establish the charges, the prosecution has examined six witnesses and exhibited as many as seven documents along with M.Os. I to IV.

Out of six witnesses, P.W.1 was the informant, P.W.2 was a post occurrence witness. P.W.3 and P.W.4 were the independent witnesses. P.W.5 was the doctor, who examined the informant on police requisition. P.W.6 was the Investigating Officer, who conducted investigation and submitted charge sheet in the present case.

6. The learned trial court, upon a thorough and meticulous appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, arrived at the following conclusion:-

“9. Now coming to the discussion of Section 148/452/332/149 I.P.C. I should seen the evidence of P.W.1. Already, I have discussed in my preceding paragraphs that the accused persons being a member of an unlawful assembly holding the deadly weapons i.e. metals (M.O.II and III) attempted to commit the death of P.W.1 by entering into the chamber of P.W.1. So when the accused persons had assaulted the B.D.O. (P.W.1) for that reason I am clear that the accused persons had forming an unlawful assembly with their common object holding deadly weapons entered into the Office chamber of P.W.1 and had assaulted him. In the F.I.R., P.W.1 has mentioned that on 26.5.99 at about 8.10A.M. while he was discharging his official duties in the office chamber, at that time the accused persons had forcibly entered and had assaulted him. He has clearly stated by the assault he did not perform his official duties. Section 332 I.P.C. says that:

"Voluntarily causing hurt to