The Court held that it was appropriate to grant probation to the convicted individuals based on their long-standing conduct and the nature of the offenses under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

JUDGMENT :

V. Narasingh, J.

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

1. This Criminal Revision has been filed assailing the Judgment dated 08.11.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Boudh in Criminal Appeal No.58 of 2000, affirming the order of conviction qua the Petitioners dated 18.02.2000 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Boudh in G.R. Case No.441 of 1993 (T.R. Case No.135 of 1998) under Sections 147 /148/323/325 and 337/149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC ) and imposing sentence of S.I. for one year under Section 148 of , to undergo S.I. for six months under Section 323 read with Section 149 of , to undergo S.I. for three months under Section 337 read with of and to undergo S.I. for three years under Section 325 read with of and directing the substantive sentences to run concurrently.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the informant, Badan Kanhar (P.W.2), a resident of village Landapadar under Kantamal Police Station, and his wife Sumitra (P.W.1), have got cultivable land locally known as Landakhol Chhak. On 12.11.1993 at about 7 A.M., while they were reaping paddy from the said land, the petitioners, being armed with Medha, Tabili, stone, etc., surrounded them and threatened to kill them. While the informant and his wife were trying to escape, one of the accused, Bidesi (since dead) and Birasingh Bhoi- Petitioner No.3 chased them, and Petitoner No.3 pelted a stone which struck the waist of the wife of the Informant. When the wife of the Informant came to his rescue, accused Pruthiraj Rana- Petitioner No.1 dealt a Medha blow causing injury to her hand, and Lachhi Bhoi, accused- Petitioner No.6 assaulted the informant by means of a Tabili on his head. The occurrence subsided on the intervention of some villagers. P.W.2 reported the incident, whereupon the case was registered against the petitioners and, after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the Petitioners for commission of offences under Sections 147 / 148/ 323/ 325/ 337/ 149 of IPC .

3. The plea of defence is one of complete denial.

4. To fortify their submission, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses of which P.W.1- Wife of the Informant and Injured, P.W.2- the Informant, P.W.11- the doctor are the material witnesses. Several documents were exhibited and marked as Exts.1 to 4/3, out of which Ext. 1, the FIR, Exts.3 and 4, the seizure lists are of significance.

The defence examined two witnesses as D.W.1 and D.W.2 and exhibited two documents, which were marked as Exts.A and B.

5. Considering the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court found the Petitioners guilty for commission of offences under Sections 147 /148/323/325/337/149 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo S.I. for one year under Section 148 of , to undergo S.I. for six months under Section 323 read with Section 149 of , to undergo S.I. for three months under Section 337 read with of and to undergo S.I. for three years under Section 325 read with of .

Taking into account the economic condition of the Petitioners, no fine was imposed and the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

6. The accused Petitioners preferred an appeal being numbered as Criminal Appeal No.58 of 2000, and the learned Appellate Court (Additional Sessions Judge, Boudh), by judgment dated 08.11.2001, considering the evidence on record and more particularly that of P.Ws.1 & 2, affirmed the conviction and did not interfere with the sentence inter alia on the ground that the same is not excessive. The said judgment is assailed in the present Criminal Revision.

7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the apprecia