BINDESHWARI YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both the criminal revision applications together as they arise out of the same judgment and are being disposed of by this judgment. Both the revision applications have been directed against the order dated 23.11.1998 passed by 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 133 of 1994, whereby the appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred against the order of conviction and sentence recorded by J.P. Sinha, S.D.J.M., Banka in G.R. Case No. 1031 of 1987 by which he convicted accused/petitioner Bindesh- wari Yadav under Sections 324 and 148 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 324 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 148 of the IPC. The remaining accused/petitioners were convicted under Sections 323 and 147 of the IPC and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and three months respectively.

(2.) There has been concurrent findings of facts by both the Courts below and on perusal of the judgment of the appellate Court I find that the appellate Court considered the evidence, facts and circumstances of the case in order to arrive at the aforesaid conclusion. The evidence of PWs 1, 3, 4 and 6 fully supported the case of prosecution as regards the manner of assault, the place of occurrence and the injuries which was corroborated by the medical evidence of PW 7. Therefore, on facts also I find no infirmity in the judgment of the Court below. Accordingly, there does not appear any merit in both the revisions so far as the merit of the case is concerned. As such the revision applications are dismissed.

(3.) It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the case relates to 1987 and the period of about 14 years has already elapsed and the occurrence took place due to bona fide land dispute between the parties who are relation and in such view of the matter and learned trial Court should have given the benefit of Probation of Offender Act, more so when it was the first offence of the petitioners but without any cogent reason the learned trial Court did not release the petitioners giving them the benefit of Probation of Offender Act. It was also submitted that the petitioners remained in jail for sometime during the pendency of the trial and preferring the revisions against the order passed by the appellate Court. It was prayed that the petitioners may be released on execution of bond under the provisions of Probation of Offender Act for maintaining peace and be of good behaviour which will meet the ends of justice. The learned APP had no objection to the aforesaid prayer being allowed. I also feel that it will not be proper to send the petitioners to jail custody again to serve out the sentences after lapse of such a long period considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the sentences awarded to the petitioners are modified and they are directed to be released on execution of bond of Rs. 300/- with one surety of like amount each for maintaining peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year. The petitioners are directed to appear before the trial Court within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order and execute the bond as stated above.