JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), Assam for the State. 2. The present revision petition under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment dated 10.05.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri in Criminal Appeal being C.A.No. 10(1)/2010, whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri though upheld the judgment and order dated 26.02.2010 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Bilasipara in G.R. (BBR.) Case No. 155/2002 by reducing the sentence imposed upon the petitioner No. 3, i.e., Jiten Barman from the Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) of 2 (two) years to imprisonment of 3 (three) months. 3. The facts of the case is that one Panchami Barman lodged an Ejahar at Bogoribari Police Station on 01.11.2002 alleging that on the said date at about 02:30 pm, the petitioners together entered into the land of the informant and while the informant, her husband and younger sister obstructed them, the petitioners assaulted over the chest and back side of the informant and also assaulted the husband of the informant over his head with iron rod. The petitioners also caused injury to the sister of the informant by lathi in different parts of her body. 4. After receipt of the aforesaid ejahar, the police registered Bagribari P.S. Case No. 155/2002 under Sections 447/325/326/34 IPC and the case was investigated. Subsequently, on completion of the investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against all the accused/petitioners under Sections 447/323/325/34 IPC. Thereafter, the accused/petitioners appeared before the learned Court below on receipt of summons and the charge under Sections 447/323/325/34 IPC were explained to the accused/petitioners, which they pleaded not guilty and accordingly, the trial was proceeded. Thereafter, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Bilasipara by the judgment dated 26.02.2010 found the petitioners guilty of commission of offence under Sections 447/323 IPC and convicted & sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for commission of offence under 447 IPC and Rs. 1,000/- for commission of offence under Section 323 IPC and in default of payment of fine, sentenced them to undergo 1 (one) month Simple Imprisonment (SI). However, the petitioner No. 3, was sentenced to undergo 2 (two) years for RI and to pay Rs. 500/- for commission of offence under 447 IPC and Rs. 1,000/- for commission of offence under Section 323 IPC and in default of payment of fine, sentenced them to undergo 1 (one) month Simple Imprisonment (SI). However, the petitioner No. 3, was sentenced to undergo 2 (two) years for RI and to pay Rs. 1,000/- as fine and in default of payment of fine, to undergo 1 (one) month additional imprisonment. 5. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment dated 26.02.2010, the accused/petitioners preferred an appeal being C.A. No. 10(1)2010 before the learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the record, the learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri vide judgment dated 10.05.2011 partly allowed the appeal by reducing the sentence of the petitioner No. 3, from the RI of 2 (two) years to imprisonment of 3 (three) months and Rs. 1,000/- as imposed earlier for commission of offence under Section 325 IPC. 6. Being aggrieved, the present petition is filed. 7. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, submits that he shall not challenge the impugned order of conviction on merit and shall confine his submission in the appeal only in respect of the order of sentence. 8. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the petitioners are entitled for benefit under Sections 360/361 Cr.P.C. and under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1958) which had not been granted by both the learned Courts below. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel further submits that the accused/petitioners have not been convicted previously for any offence and they are first time offenders. 9. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that the accused/petitioners and the informant are villagers of the same village and admittedly, the dispute arose out of a claim over land and there was a cross case and a civil suit is pending between the parties as regards ownership of the plot of land where the alleged offence was committed. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel further argues that PW-1 had admitted such position during her cross-examination. 10. According to Mr. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel further argues that PW-1 had admitted such position during her cross-examination. 10. According to Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioners though the learned Trial Court ought to have considered granting benefit under the Act, 1958, however, same was rejected only on the consideration of gravity of the alleged offence and at the same time, the learned Appellate Court even did not consider to grant benefit to the accused/petitioners. However, the learned Appellate Court categorically concluded that the incident happened as a result of clash between the parties for land and accordingly, reduced the sentence in respect of the petitioner No. 3 from RI of two years to imprisonment of 3 months and fine of Rs.1000. 11. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused/petitioners are having a right of consideration under the Act, 1958 and therefore, the right of the petitioners has been violated. It is argued that the learned Appellate Court did not invoke the provisions of the Act, 1958 nor the provisions of Sections 360/361 Cr.P.C while sentencing the accused/petitioners and the Trial court has not given any special reason in the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence for not giving benefit of such provision. 12. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mr. P. Borthakur, also fairly submits that the accused/petitioners are having a valuable right for proper consideration under the Act, 1958, however, the learned Trial Court has mechanically rejected such prayer taking note of the gravity of the offence. 13. I have heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties. 14. This Court has perused the records of the learned Trial Court including the evidence of the witnesses as well as the judgments of the learned Courts below. 15. This Court after perusal of the materials available on record has also not found any patent error or illegality in the judgments. Therefore, this Court will now deal with the entitlement of the petitioners of the benefit under the Act, 1958. 16. It is by now well settled that Act, 1958 is a milestone in progress of modern liberal trend of reform in the field of Penology. It is the result of recognition of the doctrine that the object of criminal law is more to reform the individual offender than to punish him. 16. It is by now well settled that Act, 1958 is a milestone in progress of modern liberal trend of reform in the field of Penology. It is the result of recognition of the doctrine that the object of criminal law is more to reform the individual offender than to punish him. It was also held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ved Prakash Vs. State of Haryana reported in 1981 1 SCC 447 , that sentencing an accused person is a sensitive exercise of discretion and not a routine or mechanical prescription acting on hunch. The Trial Court should collect necessary material to award a just punishment in circumstances. It was further held that the social background and the personal factors of the crime doer are very relevant in this regard. 17. In the case of Sita Ram Paswan Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 2005 SC 3534 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down certain principles for exercise of discretionary power under the Act and the consideration required. The Hon’ble Apex Court opined that while exercising the discretionary power under the Act, 1958, the Courts are to consider the circumstances of the case, the nature of offence and the character of the offender. While considering the nature of offence, the Court must take a realistic view of the gravity of the offence, the impact which the offence had on the victim. It was concluded by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the benefit available to the accused under Section 4 of the Act, 1958 is subject to the Limitation embodied in the provision and the word ‘may’ clearly indicates that the discretion is vested with the Court whether to release the offender in exercise of power under sections 3/4 of the Act, 1958, having regard to the nature of the offence, the character of the offender and overall circumstances of the case. 18. It was further held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that such power can be exercised by the Court even at the appellate or revisional stage or also by the Apex Court hearing appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 19. Now in the backdrop of the aforesaid settled propositions of law, let this Court consider the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 20. 19. Now in the backdrop of the aforesaid settled propositions of law, let this Court consider the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 20. This Court after perusal of the judgment, is of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri did not make any consideration under the Act, 1958, inasmuch as, such consideration is a right of the accused and the duties of the Courts. A Court may not grant benefit in the given facts of a case, however, consideration must be given. At the same time, the learned Trial Court though exercised its discretion under the Act, 1958, however, it did not cite any reason for rejection of such benefit. In the considered opinion of this Court, such is a failure of exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Trial Court below resulting in miscarriage of justice. 21. In the case in hand, the offence was committed on 01.11.2002, the parties are admittedly the villagers of the same village. The nature of offence cannot also be said to be heinous in the given circumstances of the case, inasmuch as the learned Appellate Court itself concluded that the incident is a clash between the parties for land and reduced the sentence. It is also on record that there was a previous enmity and counter FIR was lodged over the claim of the disputed plot of land where the offence was committed. It is also asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have not committed any similar nature of offence or to say any offence prior to the incident or during pendency of this appeal till date. The learned APP has also submitted that he has no instruction as regards any criminal activities of the petitioners. This Court has also considered that the accused/ petitioners have suffered for last 15 years litigating in the Court and facing trial, appeal and revision. 22. The learned APP has also submitted that he has no instruction as regards any criminal activities of the petitioners. This Court has also considered that the accused/ petitioners have suffered for last 15 years litigating in the Court and facing trial, appeal and revision. 22. Considering the above stated facts and without entering into the merits of the impugned judgments and considering the relevant provisions and settled propositions of law and the period lapsed from the date of incident and the evidence of the parties and also that the incident took place without any premeditation of mind and that the punishment awarded for the offences are maximum one year, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case where the benefit of provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 should be given to the accused/petitioners by this Court in exercise of its revisional power. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the petitioners, namely, (i) Shri Mona Barman, (ii) Smti. Tultuli Barman and (iii) Sri Jiten Barman, be given the benefit under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and accordingly, the sentence is modified to that effect and it is provided that instead of sending them to jail, they should be given the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 23. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioners, namely, (i) Shri Mona Barman, (ii) Smti. Tultuli Barman and (iii) Sri Jiten Barman, will file two sureties to the tune of Rs.20,000/- each along with personal bond each before the learned Trial Court i.e., the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Bilasipara and undertake to the effect that the petitioners shall maintain peace and good behaviour during the period of one year from today. The aforesaid bond be filed by the petitioners within a period of 2 months from this judgment. 24. With the aforesaid, the criminal revision petition stands allowed. 25. LCR be returned back.