The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of courts to consider the benefit of probation in fit cases as provided by law, emphasizing the reformatory and correctional object of sentencing.

JUDGMENT :

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. Heard Sri Surya Pratap Singh Parmar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of revisionists no. 1 and 2, Sri Ravi Prakash Singh, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

2. This court vide order dated 05.01.2019 for securing presence of the revisionists has issued the bailable warrant against them.

3. In compliance of that warrant, the report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia dated 27.05.2019 has been received in which it has been mentioned that the revisionist namely Nand Kishor son of Sri Suga has died, as such, the revision is abated so far as revisionist Nand Kishor is concerned.

4. This revision has been filed by Chhote Lal, Shiv Kumar and Nand Kishor (now dead) against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 24.08.2000, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Ballia, in Criminal Case No. 1346 of 2000, under Sections 323, 324, 325 I.P.C., Police Station Sahatwar, District Ballia by which accused-revisionist Chhote Lal has been convicted for the offence under Sections 323 and 324/34 I.P.C., whereas, the accused-revisionist Shiv Kumar has been convicted for offence under Sections 323, 324 and 325 read with Section 34 I.P.C.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that instead of pressing the revision on merits, he has prayed that considering the facts and circumstances of the case and legal provisions, the conviction may be maintained and the accused-revisionists may be given benefit of probation. Learned counsel for the revisionists has further submitted that both the parties belongs to the same village and on account of a dispute with regard to Abadi Land, in spur of the moment and in sudden quarrel the whole incident took place. Further submission is that one of the accused Chhote Lal was assigned Farsa and he has said to have caused injury by Farsa whereas the other accused namely Shiv Kumar was having Lathi by which the injuries are said to have been caused. So far as the offence under Section 325 I.P.C. is concerned, there is only fracture on wrist joint which is on the non vital part of the body. The case belongs to the year 1989 and also considering that presently the revisionists-accued persons are about 65 years in age, hence, they may be released on probation.

6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer and has submitted that in the alleged incident, grievous injuries were caused and on the basis of evidence on record, the accused persons have been sentenced appropriately.

7. Against the judgment of the trial court, the appeal was also preferred by the revisionists-accused persons numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2000 and the appeal was dismissed by the impugned judgment of the lower appellate court dated 10.03.2004, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Ballia, the judgment of the trial court was upheld.

8. So far as conviction under Sections 323, 324 and 325 read with Section 34 I.P.C. are concerned, learned counsel to the revisionists requested that looking to the fact that revision is pending since 2004 and awarded sentence is not more than four years, revisionists may be released on probation for maintaining peace and good behavior for specified period. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further argued that the effect of Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, in the background of what is stated in Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has not been kept in view. Learned counsel for the revisionists has also relied upon the judgment in the case of Subhash Chand & others Vs. State of UP (2015 Law Suit (All) 1343) and the judgment in Criminal Revision No. 1319 of 1999 (Hargovind & Others vs. State of U.P.) passed by this Court on 11.01.2019.

Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act reads as follows:

"3. Power of court to release certain offenders after admonition.-When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable under section 379 or section 380 or section 381 or section