IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.249 of 2007 PRABHU SINGH @ PRABHUNATH SINGH SON OF LATE DEVKI SINGH, R/O- VILLAGE ARIAN, P.S.- HISUA, DISTRICT- NAWADA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. NAWAL SINGH, SON OF SRI GAYA SINGH 3. RAJENDRA SINGH, SON OF LATE SITA RAM SINGH 4. RAMANUJ KUMAR @ RAMANUJ SINGH, SON OF LATE SITA RAM SINGH. 5. NEPALI SINGH, SON OF SRI BILAT SINGH 6. BILAT SINGH, SON OF LATE HARBANSH SINGH 7. TUNNI SINGH @ ARBIND KUMAR, S/O- NAWAL SINGH, ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE ARIAN, P.S.- HISUA, DISTRICT- NAWADA. For the petitioner : Mr. Devendra Prasad Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 9 27.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. No one has appeared on behalf of the opposite parties in spite of valid service of notice. Petitioner, who is the informant of the case, which gave rise to Sessions Case no. 01/94/95/03 of the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-V Nawada is aggrieved by that part of the judgment whereby learned Trial Court after having found that the accuseds were guilty of having committed offence punishable under Sections 324, 149 and 341 of Indian Penal Code, released them in terms of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. It appears that no substantive punishment was awarded. It is contended that the accused assaulted the informant (P.W. 2) and his cousin P.W. 1) by means of sharp cutting weapons. This was followed by assault by all the accused persons by means of their respective weapons. This occurrence 2 had taken place on the goshala where the informant and his cousin (P.Ws. 2 and 1 respectively) were present from before. Referring to paragraph 9 of the order, it is submitted that some of the injuries sustained by them were on vital parts of body. It appears that the doctor found as many as 03 injuries on the person of P.W. 1. Similarly, 04 injuries were found on the person of the informant (P.W. 2). Learned counsel submits that the manner in which the informant (P.W. 2) and his cousin brother (P.W. 1) were assaulted at the hands of the accused persons, the placement and the nature of injuries sustained by them, learned trial court ought to have awarded substantive punishment even though it is found that they were the first convicts. This Court on going through the judgment impugned finds some substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. True it is that the Court has to act in its own discretion in the matter of awarding appropriate punishment for the charges proved at the trial but the learned court has to keep in focus the fall out of the order letting off the accused on execution of bonds without awarding substantive punishment. All these factors have to be borne in mind by learned trial court while awarding sentence in terms of provisions of the Code. In my view, it would be appropriate, if trial court gives a fresh look on these issue(s). This Court without expressing any view on the issue 3 remands the matter back to learned trial court for its fresh consideration in so far as awarding of sentence is concerned. Paragraph 11 of the impugned order dated 20.11.2006 is, hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned trial court for reconsideration and passing fresh order in accordance with law. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )