Probation of Offenders Act can be invoked for less serious offenses after long delays in sentencing.

1. In this revision, there is challenge to the judgment and order dated 15.05.2015 passed by learned JMFC, Ashti in RCC No. 43 of 2012 and it being further partly confirmed by learned Sessions Judge, Beed by judgment and order dated 24.05.2017 in Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2015.

2. BRIEF FACTS

Ambhora Police charge sheeted present revisionist for offence punishable under S.324, S.323, S.504, S.506 of IPC resulting into trial by learned JMFC, Ashti by way of RCC No. 43 of 2012, wherein prosecution set up a case that on 13.02.2011, when informant Suresh, his wife Shantabai and son Gahininath were creating a way from the field of accused Ajinath, i.e. present revisionist, accused objected and further hit axe handle on the head of the informant, causing him grievous injury. On report being received to that extent, Ambhora Police registered crime bearing No. 12 of 2011 and after gathering evidence, charge sheeted present revisionist, who was tried by learned JMFC, Ashti. Prosecution examined in all 7 witnesses and also adduced documentary evidence like injury certificate etc. After appreciating the case, learned JMFC, by judgment and order dated 15.05.2015, held revisionist guilty for offences punishable under S.324 and S.323 of IPC, but acquitted him from charge of S.504 and S.506 of IPC.

3. Aggrieved by the same, present revisionist preferred Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2015 before learned Sessions Judge, Beed, who, after hearing appellant - revisionist as well as the State, partly allowed the appeal setting aside conviction for offence under S.324, IPC, but confirmed and upheld the conviction for offence under S.323 of IPC. Hence present revision.

SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of the revisionist :

4. Sum and substance of the arguments put forth by learned counsel for the revisionist is that, there is false implication. That, there was improper appreciation of evidence. He pointed out that, there was no independent eye witness account. According to him, there was no convincing and legally acceptable evidence about assault by means of handle of axe. However, both, learned trial court as well as first appellate court, failed to consider and appreciate the evidence in this regard and directly accepted the prosecution case. That, answers given by witnesses in cross have not been touched or appreciated. Independent witness had not supported and therefore, both the courts below ought not to have straightway relied on interested witness account. Hence, he questions the findings and conclusion by both, learned trial court as well as the first appellate court.

5. In the alternate, learned counsel for the revisionist pointed out that occurrence is almost two decades old. That, revisionist was a young man at the time of the incident. That, sword of conviction is hanging over his head for almost over two decades and hence, he prays to give revisionist benefit of Probation of Offenders Act or to sentence him to suffer imprisonment already undergone.

6. On behalf of the State :

Learned APP opposed on the ground that on minor count, there was assault with deadly weapon like axe on vital part like head. That, there is direct eye witness account. That, when eye - witness account was credible, prosecution case was not affected by non - cooperation from independent witness. He submitted that there is medical evidence. According to learned APP, required ingredients for offence under S.323 of IPC were available in the prosecution evidence and hence, findings and conclusion cannot be faulted at. Hence, he opposes revision and prays to dismiss it for want of merits.

7. EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT

The role and status of the seven witnesses examined by prosecution in support of its case, and the sum and substance of their evidence, can be sum