JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, learned counsel for the appellants and learned Spl.P.P.

2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20th August, 2005 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Case Nos.141/1997, 133/1999 arising out of Pathargama P.S. Case No.100 of 1996, corresponding to G.R. No.634 of 1996, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for the offence under section 325 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months.

Factual Matrix:-

3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 23rd August, 1996 at about 8:00pm, all the above appellants while under drunken state, were abusing in filthy language by saying that whoever will come in their way to create obstacle in realization of rangadari, they will ruin their life. Acting upon which, the husband of the informant, namely, Jai Prakash Rai came forward and advised them to go their home as they are drunk but they got furious and chased the husband of the informant to assault but he managed to escape from the clutch of the accused persons. On the next day i.e. on 24.08.1996 at about 8:00 am, while the husband of the informant was taking a bath in front of his house, all the accused persons armed with deadly weapons came there and caught hold of him and started indiscriminately assaulting him with iron rod and lathi and caused injuries to him. Upon hearing hulla, all the locals arrived there and saved the husband of the informant from the assault of the accused persons.

4. On the basis of aforesaid information, Pathargama P.S. Case No.100 of 1996 was instituted for the offences under sections 341, 323, 325 and 307/34 of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions where Sessions Case No.Nos.141/1997, 133/1999was registered. The appellants have denied the charges leveled against them and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of the trial, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants was passed, which has been assailed in this appeal.

5. Prosecution has examined altogether 7 witnesses in this case and one documentary evidences i.e. injury report of injured, Jay Prakash Rai has also been adduced.

6. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. The case of defence is denial from occurrence and false implication due to village politics.

Submission on behalf of appellants:-

7. Learned counsel for the appellants without touching the merits of the judgment has confined himself to the point of non-extension the benefit of section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the appellants to which they deserve. It is further submitted that it was the first offence of the appellants and there was specific plea before the concerned trial court that the appellants may be given the benefit of section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act for the offence under section 325 of IPC, which has been proved against them but the learned trial court without recording any special reasons has awarded substantive sentence of imprisonment, which is not justified under law. The appellants deserve the benefit of section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

Submission on behalf of the State:-

8. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has defended the judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants on merits but so far extending the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act is concerned, it is fairly admitted that it was the first offence of the appellants, hence, they deserve the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act.

Analysis, Reasons and Decision:-

9. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the conviction of the appellants is hereby upheld but so far the senten