IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized rehabilitation over punishment, allowing probation for first-time offenders under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

JUDGMENT :

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) :

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This criminal appeal is preferred by the appellants under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) against judgment and order dated 30.09.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/1st F.T.C. Nainital, in Sessions Trial No.81 of 2008 State Vs. Naveen Chandra Arya and others, whereby, appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:-

All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The facts of the case are that the prosecution was set into motion on a written report filed by Lalit Mohan Budhlakoti, Forest Guard Kuria Beat (PW1) to Police Station Tallital stating therein that on 28.08.2006 at 11:30 AM when he was on beat with Minshun Kumar Gusain, he got information that appellant-Naveen Chandra Arya S/o Jagdish Chandra along with his family, including Naveen Chandra’s wife and mother, were illegally making a path in the forest land. On receiving information, when they went to the spot, they saw that appellants were encroaching on the forest land and making a road. When he asked them to stop encroachment on the forest land, appellants insulted him by abusing and started pelting stones at him. Naveen’s wife (appellant No.2) cut off the little finger of Minshun Kumar’s right hand with sickle and also got stolen his mobile set bearing No.941159179. They sustained a lot of injuries due to the beating and stone pelted by them. They ran away from the spot to save their lives and threatened that they would teach them how to do a job. He informed the higher authorities about this incident and got himself treated at B.D. Pande Hospital. By disrupting the discharge of government duty as a public servant, appellants-accused persons caused grievous injuries to Minshun Kumar by fracturing and cutting his finger, insulted and threatened them with his life and property. These people keep encroaching on government land and so made a request to register a report and take legal action against appellants.

4. On the basis of aforesaid report, the case was registered at the Police Station and a chick FIR (Ext.Ka-3) was registered on 28.08.2006 at about 16:45 hrs and the investigation of the case was started. The Investigating Officer during course of investigation, got the injured medically examined, recorded the statements of witnesses, inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan and arrested the accused persons. On being satisfied, submitted a charge-sheet against the appellants/accused persons under Sections 332, 333, 336, 353, 326, 427, 504 & 506 IPC in the court. Thereafter, charges were framed against the appellants/accused persons under Sections 333, 427, 504 & 506 were framed against the accused, which the appellants/accused persons denied and claimed for trial.

5. Prosecution in order to prove its case produced as many as six witnesses namely PW1-Lalit Mohan Budhlakoti (informant), PW2-Minshun Kumar Gusain (injured), PW3- Kailash Chandra Tiwari, PW4-Constable Brijendra Sharma, PW5-Dr. Manoj Upreti and PW6-S.I. Ashok Kumar.

6. After prosecution evidence, the statement of accused-appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they stated that Lalit Kumar Budhlakoti and Minshun Kumar Gusain had caused injuries to Naveen Chandra Arya, Anita Arya and Kamla Devi, cross-case whereof is also going on and for t