1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.210/2008. 1) Dropadabai Damodar Poojari and another - APPLICANTS VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra and others. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.Amol K.Gawali, Advocate for Applicants; Mrs.BR Khekale, APP for State. Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 served. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 29th August, 2009. PER COURT : . Heard learned Counsel for the Applicants/complainant and learned APP for State. Counsel for the accused/respondent nos. 2 to 5 absent. 2) The present revision is seeking to set aside the order dated 2.8.2008 recorded by Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Criminal Appeal No.155/2006 wherein the learned Appellate court, considering the evidence on record, age of the respondents nos.2 to 5/accused, directed that they be released in terms of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 2 3) The learned JMFC, by his judgment and order dated 5th September, 2006, in Regular Trial Case No.178/1997, has indeed convicted the accused/respondent no.2 to 5 for an offence under Section 325 r/w 34 of IPC and directed to undergo S.I. for three months and payment of fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, and for an offence under Section 323 r/w 34 of IPC, to undergo S.I. for one month and fine of Rs.500/-, each in default, S.I. for 15 days. . The amount of fine was to be treated as compensation, to be paid to the informant PW. 1 - Dropadabai. 4) Mr.Gawali learned Counsel for the applicants/complainant has a grievance that the learned Appellate Court should have considered the fact situation in the matter, the lady aged 50 years has lost her two tooth in the incident, apart from suffering abrasions and other simple injuries. The Counsel informs, there is a boundary dispute at the material time. She was preparing cow-dung cakes and was brutally aspersed by the accused/respondents. The Counsel says that the respondents/accused are keen to get the land of the complainant - Dropadabai by hook or crook and, therefore, the incident has taken place. 5) At this stage of the matter, I find that the learned JMFC, as stated above, has convicted the accused/respondents for the offences in terms 3 of Sections 325 r/w 34 of IPC and 323 r/w 34 of IPC. The learned Appellate Court, in paragraph 11 of his judgment, accepted the evidence of PW.Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 to its logical conclusion,on the point of incident and assault by the accused persons, as the evidence is consistent, except minor contradictions and omissions. 6) The learned Judge found that the accused persons at the material time were young and more than 25 years. They were without any criminal record and the incident has occurred because of the dispute amongst the parties as regards share of well water. Thus, it is clear, it is not the sole desire of the original accused to sabotage ownership rights of the complainant and compel her to part with the property. The dispute revolves to the distribution of well water. The care, that has been taken by the learned Appellate court by securing a bond of good behaviour for a period of two years under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, for Rs. 5,000/- in itself is indicating that the accused/respondents, within the span of those two years, have to keep their behaviour in tune and if they fail or if there is any infraction in terms of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, the accused/respondents are bound to undergo the sentence when called upon during such period. Considering the nature of sentence inflicted by 4 the learned JMFC of three months, the learned Appellate Court was justified in exercising the powers under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, which empowers him to do so, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. The application of Section 4 of the Act as also the compensation in terms of Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, was, in fact situation, in tune with the age of the accused/respondents, their past clean record and they should not be allowed being harden criminal to make them to face the life in bitter way. 7) I do not see any error on the part of learned Judge in applying the above provisions though the Counsel repeatedly contended that the offence attracts section 325 of IPC. However, the nature of injuries, referred above will not indicate that the Appellate Court was wrong in exercising the powers in terms of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. There is no merit in the Criminal Revision, it is accordingly dismissed. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/crrv210.08/fldr.2.9 5