Probation may be granted under the Probation of Offenders Act considering age and lack of criminal history despite prior convictions for violent offenses.

JUDGMENT :

V. Narasingh, J.

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

1. This Criminal Revision has been filed assailing the judgment dated 17.11.2001 passed by the learned Adhoc Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Baripada, Mayurbhanj in Criminal Appeal No.03/29 of 2001/94 affirming the order of conviction qua the Petitioners dated 25.02.1994 passed by the learned CJM, Mayurbhanj-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in S.T. Case No.24/113 of 1992 under Sections 148 /379/324/326 and imposing a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.100/- each. In default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days.

2. The allegation against the present Petitioners is that on 06.12.1991 at about 11:00 A.M. being armed with sword, tangia, bow and arrows and lathis, came upon the case land and forcibly removed the paddy bundles to their house. On getting information, the informant (P.W.3) along with his brother (P.W.8) and father (P.W.10) went to the land, where the appellants abused them in filthy language and assaulted them by means of sword, tangia and arrows, causing bleeding injuries. The informant went to the Police Station and lodged a written report, on the basis of which Betanati P.S. Case No.111 of 1991 was registered and subsequently upon completion of investigation, charge- sheet was submitted against the Petitioners under Sections 148 / 379/ 307/ 149 IPC .

3. To drive home the charge, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses of whom P.W.1, the informant and P.W.9, the Doctor are the material witnesses, and several documents were adduced and marked as Exts. 1 to 12, of which Exts.2, 3 and 4 being the injury reports, Ext.12 being the Spot Map are of significance.

The defence examined two witnesses as D.Ws. 1 and 2 and also adduced several documents marked as Exts. A to H.

4. The defense plea was one of complete denial and false implication.

5. On a conspectus of the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court found the Petitioners guilty of the offences under Sections 148 , 379, 324 and 326 of the IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of fifteen days.

Assailing the same the appeal was preferred. The learned Appellate Court on consideration of the evidence on record and the analysis thereof dismissed the same and affirmed the conviction and sentence.

As noted, challenging which the present revision has been preferred.

6. At the outset, learned counsel for the State submits that Petitioner Nos.1 and 4 have passed away. The instruction to the said effect submitted in a tabular form is taken on record.

Since there is no motion on their behalf to continue the revision, this revision stands abated qua the Petitioner Nos.1 and 4 and is confined to Petitioner Nos.2, 3, 5 to 9.

7. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the appreciation of the evidence by the learned Courts below is ex facie perverse, thereby calling for interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

8. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, referring to the evidence of P.W.2, 5, 6 and 11, submits that upon a cogent analysis of the evidence on record, the Petitioners have rightly been found guilty, and the sentence imposed cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said to be harsh, as has also been rightly held by the learned Appellate Court. Hence, the matter does not warrant any interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

9. At this stage, learned counsel for the Petitione