DHANESHWAR SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the Judgment dated 21-12-2000 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in Cr. Appeal No. 13 of 1996, confirming the order of conviction recorded by Sri Krishna Kant Shukla, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhagalpur in his Judgment dated 12-2-1996 rendered in G.R. Case No. 1131 of 1992 Tr. No. 293 of 1996. All the revisionists were convicted under Sections 147, 448, 427 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Revisionists No. 9 to 15 were released under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act after due admonition. The rest of the revisionists were sentenced by the trial Court for one year on all the counts, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appellate Court reduced the sentence to six months under Section 379 and 3 months regarding the rest of the offences, the sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) The revisionist lawyer submitted that three of the revisionist namely Dhaneshwar Sah, Badamiya Devi and Laxmi Devi had entered into a compromise with the informant, Manju Devi. There is a petition of compromise dated 24-7-2002 under the signature of Manju Devi and Dhaneshwar Sah, Laxmi Devi and in the L.T.I. of Badamiya Devi same advocate has also signed on the compromise petition. There was another petition fifed by Manju Devi seeking permission from the Court to enter into a compromise. So in view of the compromise the above revisionists shall stand acquitted for the offence under Sections 448 and 427 of the Indian Penai Code.

(3.) So far the other offences are concerned, it has been submitted by the revisionist's lawyer that in view of the good feelings having been restored between the parties as also in view of the fact that all the revisionists are the agates of the informant, a lenient view may be taken. Moreover, the revisionists are also entitled to the benefits of Section 360 of the Probation of Offenders Act. I find that the appellate Court had become indulgent to the revisionists and it had modified the sentences awarded by the trial Court. So I think that in view of the compromise and in view of the circumstances oh the record, specially no previous criminal antecedent of the revisionists having been brought on the record, they shall deserve the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act specially under Section 4.