In cases of minor offenses with no criminal antecedents, courts may prioritize rehabilitation over punishment and grant probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, especially when significant time has elapsed since the offense.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The present appeal has been preferred by the convicts assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.12.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Patnagarh in Sessions Case No. 68/15 of 2008 (Arising out of G.R.354 of 2006 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Patnagarh), whereby the learned Trial Court, while acquitting the accused persons of the charges under Sections 147 , 148, 307 and 294 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, convicted accused-appellant No.3 for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and all the accused persons for the offence under Section 341 read with , sentencing accused-appellant No.3 to undergo simple imprisonment for two months with a fine of Rs.1,000/- (in default, to undergo S.I. for fifteen days) and directing all the convicts to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence under /149 (in default, to undergo S.I. for ten days).

2. While the appeal was pending, this Court has been apprised that appellant no.1-Bishnu Sahu has expired. Therefore, vide order dated 26.02.2026, the appeal against the deceased appellant No.1 stood abated, in the absence of any motion on behalf, the legal heirs or next friend of the deceased appellant U/S.394 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the present appeal is confined to appellant Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5.

3. Heard Mr. Pritam Kumar Mallick, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. A.K. Apat, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State.

4. The factual matrix of the prosecution case, as unfolded in the First Information Report lodged by Madan Behera (P.W.10) on 24.10.2006, is that on 15.10.2006, a Sunday, an altercation arose in front of the informant’s house when his brother, Banshidhar Behera, questioned accused Bishnu Sahu regarding damage caused to his paddy crop by the latter’s buffaloes. It is alleged that, in response thereto, all the accused persons, forming an unlawful assembly, suddenly assaulted Banshidhar Behera with thengas, as a result of which he sustained injuries on his person. Hearing the alarm raised by his brother, the informant rushed to the spot, whereupon the accused persons allegedly tied him with a rope. Thereafter, the witnesses present at the spot provided water to the injured Banshidhar Behera and shifted him first to his house and subsequently to the Patnagarh Hospital for medical treatment. Upon receipt of the written report, the Officer-in-Charge of Patnagarh Police Station registered Patnagarh P.S. Case No. 100 dated 24.10.2006 and took up investigation. During investigation, he examined the informant, the injured, and other witnesses, sent the injured for medical examination, visited the spot, seized the alleged weapon of offence, a blood-stained dhoti and a rope, arrested the accused persons, and upon completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet against them.

Based on the materials placed on record, the accused persons were charged before the learned Trial Court for offences punishable under Sections 147 , 148, 341, 323, 294, 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, for allegedly forming an unlawful assembly and attempting to commit the murder of Banshidhar Behera.

5. On their stance of complete denial of the charges and claim for trial; the accused-appellants were put to trial.

6. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined thirteen witnesses in total. Among them, P.W.10 is the informant, P.W.12 was the injured witness, and P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 7 and 9 were the eyewitnesses to the occurrence. P.W.8 was a post-occurrence witness, while P.W.11 was the scribe of the F.I.R. P.Ws.4 and 5 were witnesses to t