IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1647 of 2009 Sudersan Tiwary, S/O Late Baleshwar Tiwary, resident of village- Chhota Sasaram, P.O. Chhota Sasaram, P.S. Udwantnagar, Distt. Bhojpur at Arrah. ………Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Narayan Tiwary S/o Laxaman Tiwary. 3. Narad Tiwary S/o Laxman Tiwary 4. Laxman Tiwary S/o Late Kailash Tiwary. (All are resident of village-Chhota Sasaram, P.S.-Udwantnagar, District- Bhojpur at Arrah). ….Opposite Parties ----------- 2. 23.11.2011 The son of the informant (deceased) has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 31.07.2009 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Arrah in Cr. Appeal No.69/2009 by which he has been pleased to acquit the accused opposite party no.4 under Section 325 of the I.P.C. and has upheld the conviction of opposite party no.2 under Section 324 of the I.P.C. and convicted the opposite party no.4 under Section 323 of the I.P.C. and they have been released on bond after giving benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act modifying the judgment and order dated 2.05.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Bhojpur at Arra in G.R. No.2081/2000, Trial No.172/2009. 2 The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 30.07.2000 at about 7.00 P.M. the informant while sitting with his son at his Darwaja, all the accused came there and started cutting soil ridge which was protested by the informant and his son. Thereafter, the accused persons abused him and his son, which was protested by the informant and his sons. Thereafter, opposite party no.2 assaulted the petitioner with spread causing injury. Opposite party no.3 assaulted the father of the petitioner (deceased) with Bhala causing injury. In the meantime, accused opposite party no.4 assaulted both the informant and his son with Lathi. On the written informant of the informant, Udwantnagar P.S.Case No.146/2000 was instituted against the four accused. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused opposite party nos. 2 to 4. Cognizance was taken. Charges were framed against the accused opposite parties. After the trial, the accused Narayan Tiwari and Narad Tiwari have been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year under Section 324 of the I.P.C. and Laxman Tiwari was convicted and sentenced to R.I. for six months under Section 323 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for one year under Section 325 of the I.P.C. 3 with a fine of Rs.1000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, 3 months further imprisonment and all the sentences to run concurrently. They have not been convicted under Sections 341 and 504 of the I.P.C. vide order dated 2.05.2009 passed by the learned trial court. Thereafter, the accused opposite party preferred Cr. Appeal No.69/2009 against the aforesaid judgment and order. After hearing the appeal, the learned appellate court has modified the sentence and the appeal has been dismissed with modification in the sentence. All the accused have been given the benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and directed to furnish a bond of Rs.3000/- with two sureties of the like amount for maintaining peace for one year. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused have been convicted by the learned trial court and has rightly passed the order of sentence of imprisonment against the opposite party and the learned appellate court had no occasion to modify the sentence passed by the learned trial court. The learned counsel for the State submits that the learned appellate court has considered the record of the 4 trial court and has found that it was the first offence of the convicts and considered that they are first offenders and they have been given the benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. There is no illegality or impropriety in the order. As such, this Court has no occasion to interfere with the impugned order. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the material on record as also impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court as well as the appellate court, it appears that the accused opposite parties have no criminal antecedent and it was their first offence. The occurrence has also taken place on 30.07.2000. More than 11 years have passed. There is no material on record to show that the accused have committed any overt act after passing of the order by the learned appellate court. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)