1. By way of present revision application, filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants have prayed to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 16th January, 2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 10th Fast Track Court, Rajkot in Sessions Case No.03 of 2003. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the applicants for the offences punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine, sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of five days.
2. The brief facts of the case is that on 13th October, 2002 the applicants along with other persons use abusive language and gave fist and kick blows to the complainant and her husband and also insulted by using abusive language towards their community. Therefore, a complaint to the said effect came to be registered against the applicants. Thereafter investigation was carried out and on completion of investigation, as sufficient evidence was found against the applicants, they were charge-sheeted.
3. Thereafter, charge came to be framed against the applicants below Exhibit 5, to which the applicants did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter statements of witnesses came to be recorded and ultimately, as stated aforesaid, the applicants came to be convicted.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicants have preferred the present revision application before this Court.
5. Heard Ms.Maria Dalal, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr.H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
6. Ms.Dalal, learned counsel for the applicants, states that the learned Judge has committed grave error in holding the present applicants guilty for the offences punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. She has further contended that the applicants were acquitted from the offence of Atrocity Act. She has also contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the present applicants. She has further contended that the story put forward by the complainant is doubtful and benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the applicants. She has also contended that the applicants have prayed for the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, but the learned Sessions Judge has not properly considered the case of the applicants for probation. She has also contended that she is not arguing the matter on merits, but simply praying for mercy. She has contended that looking to the overall facts of the case, lenient view may be taken against the applicants.
7. As against this, Mr.H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, states that the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is absolutely just and proper. He has contended that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
8. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused papers produced before me. It appears from the papers that the conviction imposed upon the applicants is just and proper, but when the applicants are praying for mercy, I am of the opinion that if lenient view is taken, the same would meet with ends of justice.
9. Hence, the present revision application is partly allowed. The judgment and order of sentence dated 16th January, 2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 10th Fast Track Court, Rajkot in Sessions Case No.03 of 2003 is confirmed; however, the sentence is reduced and modified to an extent that now the applicants shall pay only fine of Rs.1,500/- each within four weeks, and in default of payment of fine amount, the order dated 16th January, 2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 10th Fast Track Court, Rajkot in Sessions Case No.03 of 2003 shall remain operative. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith.
(Z. K. Saiyed, J) Anup