JUDGMENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.R. Sarma 1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order, dated 5-5-04, passed by the learned sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kailashhar in Criminal Appeal No.9(3) of 2002, whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge, while upholding conviction under Section 148, 324 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short, ?IPC?) against all the petitioners and under Section 147 IPC against Kamal Uddin, set aside the conviction recorded under Section 323 read with Section 147 IPC. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge while modifying the sentence recorded by the learned Magistrate directed all the petitioners, except Kamal Uddin, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for their conviction under Section 148 IPC. Mr. Kamal Uddin was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for two months for his conviction under Section 147IPC. All the petitioners were directed to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for their conviction under Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC. It was directed that the sentences shall run concurrently. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction and sentences, the convict-appellants as petitioners have come up with this revision challenging the impugned conviction and sentences passed by the learned Sessions Judge aforesaid. 2. I have heard Mr. C. S. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. Bhattacharjee, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, as revealed during the trial may be stated as follows :- The petitioners and the complainant belong to the same family. There was a dispute regarding their paternal property. On 9-10-94, on the basis of an amicable settlement, reached between the petitioners and the complainant, all the immovable properties, left by their predecessor-in-interest, were partitioned on 16-10-94. After the completion of the said partition at about 4-30 p.m., the petitioner Mr. Gouch Ali demanded partition of all movable properties, left by the grand father of the complainant and the conciliator involved in the said partition assured that the partition would take place on the next date. But the petitioner, namely, Mr. Gouch Ali instigated the other petitioners to attack the father of the informant and accordingly, all the petitioners, being armed with dao, axe, lathi, spade etc., entered the dwelling house of the informant and assaulted the informant and his parents causing injuries to their persons. But the petitioner, namely, Mr. Gouch Ali instigated the other petitioners to attack the father of the informant and accordingly, all the petitioners, being armed with dao, axe, lathi, spade etc., entered the dwelling house of the informant and assaulted the informant and his parents causing injuries to their persons. On being so injured, the informant and his parents were treated in the RGM hospital, Kailashahar. On the next day, the informant lodged an FIR with the police at Kailashahar police station and the same was registered as Kailashahar PS case no. 153 of 1994 under Sections 148/149/454/326/379 IPC. On receipt of the said FIR, police launched investigation into the matter and submitted chargesheet against the petitioners and others under Sections 148/149/323/324/454/379IPC and forwarded the accused persons to the court to stand trial. On receipt of the chargesheet, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, North Tripura, Kailashahar took cognizance of the offences and proceeded with the trial. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate framed charges against all the accused persons under Sections 148/323 read with Section 149/324/380/354IPC. The charges were explained and read over to the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses including the Medical Officer. At the close of the evidence for the prosecution, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 CrPC. The accused persons denied the allegations, brought against them. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, considering the evidence, convicted the petitioners except Mr. Kamal Uddin for the offence under Section 148 IPC. The accused Kamal Uddin was convicted under Section 147 IPC. All the petitioners were convicted under Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC and under Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC. The accused persons were acquitted of the charge under Sections 380 and 454 IPC. The convicts were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each for their conviction under Section 148 IPC. The accused Kamal Uddin was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- for his conviction under Section 147 IPC. The convicts were also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs. 50/- each for their conviction under Section 323 IPC. The accused Kamal Uddin was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- for his conviction under Section 147 IPC. The convicts were also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs. 50/- each for their conviction under Section 323 IPC. The said convicted persons were also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay fine of Rs. 500/- each for their conviction under Sections 324/149 IPC. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentences, the convicted persons as appellant preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment and order modified the conviction and sentences as indicated above. Dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioners have come up with this revision petition. 4. Mr. C. S. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, taking this court through the FIR and the evidence on records, has submitted that the dispute regarding share of the family property between the informant and the petitioners gave rise to the occurrence and that the petitioners are not criminal by nature. The learned counsel has submitted that the prosecution failed to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the petitioners were the aggressors. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while praying for setting aside the impugned conviction and sentences, has submitted that award of imprisonment for three months, without resorting to the provisions of imposing penalty by way of fine or taking resort to the provisions of Section 360 CrPC caused much prejudice to the petitioners. The learned counsel further submitted that considering entire facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that they belong to the same family, ends of justice demands that the petitioners should have been released either on probation, under the provisions of Section 360 or by imposing fine, as alternative arrangement, as prescribed by the statute. 5. Mr. P. Bhattacharjee, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State while supporting the impugned conviction and sentence has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge rightly modified the conviction and the sentences and as such the impugned judgment and order needs no interference at this stage. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the materials on record, more particularly, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses including medical evidence. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the materials on record, more particularly, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses including medical evidence. 7. There is no dispute that petitioners and the informant were parties to a family partition, in respect of their paternal property. Admittedly, the occurrence took place due to the said family partition. The incident took place when Mr. Gouch Ali, one of the petitioners, demanded partition in respect of the property of the grand father of the informant. The prosecution witnesses i.e. PW Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 supported the prosecution version. From their evidence, it is clearly found that the petitioners being armed with weapons like dao, lathi etc attacked the informant i.e. PW 1 and his parents i.e. PW 2 and PW 3 and due to the said attack, as revealed from the evidence of the Medical Officer i.e. PW 6, Smt. Salema Begam, PW 2 sustained one incised wound on her right arm measuring 2/ / . According to the Medical Officer, the said injury was simple in nature, caused by sharp cutting weapon. From the evidence of the said Medical Officer, it is found that Monohar Ali, PW 5 also sustained one lacerated injury over the right parietal region measuring 2/ / . According the Medical Officer, the said injury was simple in nature and caused by blunt weapon. This witness (PW 5) also sustained injury at the back of his neck, left elbow, sacral region and chest wall. According to the Medical Officer, the said injuries were also simple in nature, caused by blunt weapon. There is no medical evidence regarding injury sustained by the informant i.e. Mr. Dilwar Hussain, PW 1. All the said witnesses indicated the involvement of the petitioners. Though the prosecution witnesses were cross-examined on behalf of the defence, no major contradiction could elicited from their evidence. Therefore, from the evidence, adduced by the said witnesses, it stood established, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the petitioners, being armed with lathi, dao etc assaulted PW 2 and PW 3 and caused injuries on their persons. As revealed from the medical evidence, the injuries sustained by the said injured persons were simple in nature. Therefore, from the evidence, adduced by the said witnesses, it stood established, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the petitioners, being armed with lathi, dao etc assaulted PW 2 and PW 3 and caused injuries on their persons. As revealed from the medical evidence, the injuries sustained by the said injured persons were simple in nature. Therefore, considering entire aspect of the matter, I have no hesitation in holding that the learned Sessions Judge committed no error by holding the petitioners guilty of the offences under Sections 148,147 and 324 read with Section 149 IPC. While modifying the conviction and the sentences recorded by the learned Magistrate, the learned Sessions Judge sentenced the petitioners except Mr. Kamal Uddin to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for their conviction under Section148 IPC. The convict Kamal Uddin was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for two months for his conviction under Section 147 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge also sentenced all the convicts to suffer imprisonment for three months for their conviction under Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC. Section 360 CrPC provides the provision for releasing the convicted persons on Probation of good conduct or after admonition. Considering the nature of the offence, committed by the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class and the learned Sessions Judge rightly observed that the convicted persons were not entitled to the benefit of release on Probation i.e. under z 360 CrPC. I find no illegality or perversity in respect of the said observation made by the learned courts below. 8. As discussed above, the occurrence took place due to a dispute regarding partition of the family property. From the fact of this case, it is clear that both the parties amicably tried to settle the matter and amicable settlement in respect of the family property, except the property, left by the grand father of the informant, was reached on 16-10-94. After the said settlement, Mr. Gouch Ali claimed partition in respect of the movable properties left by the grand father of the informant. But the partition in respect of the said property was deferred to the next date. At this stage, Mr. Gouch Ali and other petitioners attacked the informant and the injured persons. The occurrence took place on 16-10-94 i.e. about 17 years ago. Admittedly, the petitioners are facing the litigation since then. But the partition in respect of the said property was deferred to the next date. At this stage, Mr. Gouch Ali and other petitioners attacked the informant and the injured persons. The occurrence took place on 16-10-94 i.e. about 17 years ago. Admittedly, the petitioners are facing the litigation since then. Therefore, considering the sufferings undergone by the petitioners, the date of occurrence and the facts and circumstances in which the alleged offences were committed, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served at this stage, by sending the petitioners to Jail to suffer simple imprisonment for a short period of three months. In my considered opinion, the petitioners have already suffered a lot. Therefore, considering entire aspect of the matter, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be met, if the petitioners are directed to pay fine instead of undergoing imprisonment for three months and two months in respect of Kamal Uddin. Therefore, I find it to be a fit case to modify the sentences. 9. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction under Section 147, 148 and 324 read with Section149 IPC, all the petitioners are sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each for their conviction under Section 147 IPC, in default of payment of fine, suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The petitioners are also sentenced to pay find of Rs. 500/- each for their conviction under Section 148IPC, in default of payment of fine, suffer simple imprisonment for three months. All the petitioners are further sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for their conviction under Section 324 IPC, in default of payment of fine, suffer simple imprisonment for another period of six months. 10. With the above modification in respect of the sentences, this criminal revision is partly allowed. 11. It is made clear that the petitioners shall deposit the fine amount, as ordered, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kailashahar, North Tripura within a period of three months from this date. 12. Accordingly, this criminal revision stands disposed of. Return the lower court records. A copy of the order be furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioners.