Full Judgment
Anil Kumar Sinha, J.
1. This revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 23-11-1998 passed by the llnd Additional Sessions Judges, Patna in Cri. Appeal No. 134/1997 whereby he dismissed the appeal arising out of the judgment and order dated 23-7-1997 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Danapur in G.R. Case No. 1421/94 whereby the learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner No. 1 under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced her to simple imprisonment for one month and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo S.I. for four months each, whereas petitioner No. 4 was convicted under Section 323, I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year.
2. It was submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the injuries sustained by the informant were found to be simple in nature by the doctor who admitted in his evidence that the injuries were possible by fall and the nature of injuries as found by him indicate that the injuries were triffling in nature. It was also pointed to me that it has been stated in the First Information Report itself that the occurrence took place on account of some domestic affairs between the informant and the petitioners out of whom three were ladies. The First Information Report also discloses that the petitioner No. 1 caught hald of the informant and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 assaulted her with fist and slaps. There is allegation against the petitioner No. 4 that he assaulted with lathi causing bleeding injuries to the informant but the doctor did not find any bleeding injuries on her person which belie the prosecution version, so far as the allegation of assault against the petitioner No. 4 is concerned. It was, therefore, submitted that considering the nature of the case, the learned trial Court was not justified in awarding punishment of one year to petitioner No. 4, and as also the sentences which have been awarded to petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and the petitioners should have been released on execution of bond for maintaining peace under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act instead of sending them to imprisonment after the lapse of seven years.
3. Agreeing with the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, I also feel that the ends of justice will be met if the petitioners are given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act which the learned trial Court ought to have given in the facts and circumstances of the case instead of awarding such a harsh sentence to the petitioners. Accordingly the sentence awarded by the trial Court against the petitioners is modified and the petitioners are directed to be released on execution of a bond of Rs. 2,000/- with one surety of like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court on giving an undertaking to the effect that they will maintain peace for a period of one year, failing which they will appear and receive the sentence accordingly.
4. In the result, therefore, this revision application is dismissed with modification in the sentence as stated above.