Full Judgment
S.N. Pathak, J.
1. This revision is directed against the judgment 22.9.2001, passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Hilsa (Nalanda) in Cr. Appeal No. 75 of 1999 confirming the judgment of the trial Court, passed by the S.D.J.M. Hilsa on 2.8.1999 in G.R. No. 1015 of 1995 Tr. No. 675 of 1999. Both the revisionists were convicted by the trial Court under Sections 323 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and three months respectively. The appellate Court acquitted the revisionist Deo Narayan Gope for the offence under Section 323, IPC, but maintained his conviction and sentence under Section 342, IPC. The revisionist No. 2 Mahendra Gope's, conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court was maintained by the appellate Court as well.
2. This revision has been admitted on the point of sentence only. The revisionists lawyer submitted that both the Courts below did not given the benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C. or the Probation of Offenders Act to the revisionists under Section 361 Cr.P.C. Special reasons have to be stated in the judgment if the Court does not extend, the benefit of the aforesaid provisions to the convicts. So the sentence passed by the Courts below was vitiated by illegality. I find that the trial Court stated in its judgment that the revisionists had assaulted the informant without any provocation. So he committed high handedness and so it did not permit the complaint to deserve any leniency from the Court.
3. It appears from the case of the informant that when she and her husband were passing by the side of the house of the revisionists, they were intercepted and abused and assaulted on the allegation that they had defecated in the field of the accused revisionists. Of course the act of the accused persons was the act of high handedness so the moot question is whether these revisionists deserve any leniency under Section 360 Cr.P.C. or the Probation of Offenders Act. Admittedly there is no previous criminal antecedent of the revisionists on the record of the case. Therefore, special reasons as contemplated under Section 361 Cr.P.C. must, of course, be special reasons and the same as referred to by the trial Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, may move the sentiments of the Court as also any of body. I do not however think those were special reasons. It has been further submitted that the accused remained in custody for near about 12 days. In the aforesaid circumstances, I think it would be aforesaid circumstances, I think it would be expedient that the revisionists may be directed to furnishing bond for maintaining peace for one year.
4. In the aforesaid circumstances this appeal is, therefore, dismissed so far the order of conviction is concerned. The order dated 22.9.2001 is set aside and the revisionists are directed to surrender in the Court below and furnish bond of Rs. 2000/- with one surety to maintain peace for one year and to be of good behaviour for the same period with all conditions under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders. Act. In case of violation of any condition, they shall be called upon to receive the sentences passed by the trial Court. The revisionists must surrender in the Court below within two months and furnish the bond as directed above.