Chattisgarh High Court
Mst. Janki Bai And Another vs State Of M.P. on 15 January, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(1)MPHT27(CG)
Author: R.S. Garg
Bench: R.S. Garg
JUDGMENT R.S. Garg, J.
1. By this revision petition the applicants seek to challenge the correctness, validity and propriety of the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 123 of 1999 by the learned Sessions Judge, Raigarh on 5-1-2000, while setting aside the conviction of the applicants recorded by the Trial Court for offences punishable under Sections 186 and 353 hut convicting them for offences punishable under Section 323, IPC has awarded them three months R.I.
2. On the prosecution allegations that on the date of the incident the present applicants pelted stones on the revenue party, when the revenue party had gone to deliver possession of the premises to the third party and even after interference of the police they did not stop rather continued pelting stones on the police personnel a case was registered against the applicants. On completion of the investigation the challan was filed before the Competent Court on which Criminal Case No. 719 of 1997 was registered. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sarangarh after finding against the present applicants convicted each of the applicant for offences punishable under Sections 186 and 353, IPC. The Appellate Court as observed above acquitted each of the applicant of the said offences but however convicted each of them under Section 323, IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for three months.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that from the evidence available on the record it would clearly appear that the findings recorded by the two Courts arc contrary to records and as the Courts below have not seen the evidence in its true perspective each of the applicant deserves to be acquitted. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that from the findings recorded by the two Courts it would clearly appear that each of the applicant has been rightly held guilty for commission of the offences.
4. After going through the complete evidence of the prosecution witnesses I am unable to hold that the Courts below were unjustified in recording the findings against each of the applicant. From the statements of Ramdayal (P.W. 1), Baijanti Sahu (P.W. 4) and Sushila Dubey (P.W. 8) it would clearly appear that each of the applicant was pelting stones from inside the house and the said stones caused injuries to some of the persons. Interference in the revisional jurisdictional is permissible only if the findings recorded by the two Courts are perverse or are based on no evidence. The findings recorded by the Courts below cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to records. The Courts below did not ignore the evidence which was available on the records nor have read something which was not available on the records. The findings recorded by the two Courts cannot be held to be perverse. The Courts below were justified in recording the conviction of the applicants and the Appellate Court was certainly justified in convicting each of the applicant for offence punishable under Section 323, IPC.
5. From the records it would clearly appear that the applicants arc women. The records do not show that they are habitual offenders. On the other hand, it appears that in the fist of fury as they were apprehending dispossession each of the applicant started pelting stones. Taking into consideration, the manner and the circumstances in which the offence was committed. I consider present to be a fit case for extending the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to each of the applicant.
6. The sentences awarded to each of the applicant are set aside instead it is directed that within a period of one month from today each of the applicant in accordance with law shall submit a personal bond in sum of Rs. 2,000/- with one surety in the like amount for a period of six months to maintain peace and be of good behaviour to the satisfaction of the Trial Court and in the event of their committing breach of the conditions of the bond to come and receive the sentence.
7. Though the convictions are maintained but the applicants are given the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act in the terms above.
8. To the extent indicated above the petition is allowed.
9. Criminal Revisionl allowed.