The court may exercise discretion under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, to release convicts on a bond for maintaining peace and good behavior instead of imposing substantive imprisonment, based on the convicts' age, character, and antecedents.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. Lalit Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 25.05.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 06 of 2010 by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar, whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court has dismissed the appeal by affirming the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 22.01.2010 passed by learned J.M. 1st Class, Deoghar, in G.R. Case No. 819 of 2000 whereby and whereunder the petitioners have been convicted for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 324 & 326 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo S.I. for one month under Section 341 of I.P.C.; R.I. for 6 months under Section 323 of I.P.C; R.I. for 2 years for the offence under Section 324 of I.P.C. and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years and 11 months for the offence under Section 326 of I.P.C. along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Factual Matrix

3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that on 09.11.2000 at about 05:00 P.M., the informant was returning after grazing his cattle and while he reached a lane in front of his house, Sukhdeo Mahto, Tiket Mahto and Bhibhisan Mahto came and restrained him. Sukhdeo Mahto lashed with a rod, Ticket Mahto lashed with sword and Bhibhisan Mahto was armed with lathi. The informant tried to enter his house while raising alarm but Tiket Mahto assaulted him with a sword due to which he sustained a cut injury on his forehead and blood started oozing out. Sukhdeo Mahto assaulted him on his hand and leg with an iron rod due to which the informant fell down. Upon hearing the alarm, the informant’s son Nagdi Mahto came to save him, whereupon Bhibhisan Mahto assaulted the informant’s son with a lathi. It has further been alleged that earlier to this occurrence the accused persons also assaulted the informant and prohibited the informant from using the said lane.

4. On the basis of fardbeyan of informant, Jasidih P.S. Case No. 192 of 2000 was registered under Sections 341, 323 & 324/34 of the I.P.C. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 341, 323, 324 & 326/34 of I.P.C. and learned C.J.M., Deoghar took cognizance of the offences under the aforesaid Sections.

5. The case of accused Bhibhisan Mahto has been separated and sent to Juvenile Justice Board for inquiry and disposal vide order dated 14.02.2001.

6. Charges under Sections 341, 323, 324 & 326 of I.P.C. have been framed and explained to all accused persons in Hindi to which they did not plead guilty and claimed for trial.

7. After conclusion of trial the petitioners were convicted and sentenced as stated above.

Submissions on behalf of the petitioners

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.1, Sukhdeo Mahto @ Sukdeo Mahto who happens to be more than 70 years at present is alleged to have caused injury to the informant by rod blow which does not find corroboration from medical report of the injured. It is further submitted that petitioner No.2, Ticket Mahto @ Tickeet Yadav who happens to be son of the petitioner No.1, inflicted twice sword-blow injury on the informant one of which was found to be simple in nature and another grievous in nature although, no X-ray report was produced during trial. Both the petitioners were convicted for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 324 & 326 of I.P.C and maximum sentence awarded was two years 11 months along with fine of Rs. 1,000/-.

9. It is further submitted that it is admitted fact that both the parties are Gotiya of each other and in a sudden quarrel the incident took place. There was no prior enmity or intention to cause any particular injury to the informant/injured. It was petitioners’ first offence as is also mentioned in the impugned judgment passed by learned trial Court, but w