JUDGMENT
A.S. Naidu, J.
1. This criminal revision has been filed, inter alia, challenging the order dated 5.9.1996 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur in Crl. Appeal No. 26 of 1995 confirming the order dated 10.8.1994 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhanjanagar in G.R. Case No. 504 of 1981 convicting the petitioners for commission of offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 452/149 I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to undergo S.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, S.I. for one month for the offence under Section 147 I.P.C; S.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, S.I. for one month for the offence under Sections 323/149 I.P.C; S.I. for two years and fine of Rs. 500/- in default, S.I. for one month for the offence under Sections 325/149 I.P.C. and S.I. for two years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, S.I. for two months for the offence under Sections 452/149 I.P.C. with a direction that the sentences of imprisonment would run concurrently.
2. It was alleged that on 11.9.1981 at about 11.30 P.M., P.W.3 – Prasanta Kumar Mohapatra, Pramod Kumar Mohapatra (not examined) and P.W. 9 – Ramesh Kumar Mohapatra, sons of the informant – Bani Charan Mohapatra (P.W.I) slept in the village school where one Almirah was kept being prepared by the informant. The accused persons and some others forming an unlawful assembly and being armed with various weapons came to the school and seeing the sons of the informant in a room locked the said room from outside. Finding the Almirah in the western room, they entered into the said room by breaking open the door. Sons of the informant woke up and shouted. When the informant and Ors. rushed to the spot, the accused persons started assaulting them causing bleeding injuries. It was alleged that the accused persons took away the Almirah and the military warrant card of the son of the informant and left the place. On the basis of the F.I.R. lodged, G.R. case No. 504 of 1981 was registered.
3. The pleas of the defence was one of complete denial. In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused persons took a specific plea that due to political rivalry, the false case had been foisted.
4. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents. The defence neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document.
5. The trial Court after vivid discussion of the evidence, both oral and documentary, found that the accused persons forming an unlawful assembly had come to the spot being armed with deadly weapons and had committed the alleged offences. Accordingly, the trial Court held them guilty under Sections 147, 323, 325, 452/149 IPC, but acquitted them of the charge under Section 148 I.P.C.. The Addl. Sessions Judge also after discussing the evidence confirmed the conviction as well as the sentence passed against the accused persons.
6. Mr. Dhal, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence and have lost sight of the fact that three persons were sleeping in the school when they had no business to sleep there. He also submitted that the prosecution story was a concocted one and the case had been falsely foisted out of political rivalry. According to Mr. Dhal, the occurrence took place as long back as in the year 1981 and in the meanwhile 23 years have lapsed and it is a fit case where the accused persons should be acquitted. At the other hand, learned State Counsel submits that the Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence and have arrived at a right conclusion and there is nothing to reveal that the Courts below have committed any error apparent on the face of record. According to the learned State Counsel, it is a fit case where interference of this Court is not necessary.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the materials, both oral and documentary, I find no reason to interfere with the findings arrived at by the Courts below. The evidence clearly reveals that the petitioners trespassed into the school and caused injuries to the informant and other prosecution witnesses. The prosecution has succeeded to prove the case against the accused-petitioners. The Courts below have discussed the evidence at length and have not committed any error apparent on the face of record. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction of the petitioners. But then, as submitted by Mr. Dhal, 23 years have lapsed in the meanwhile and most of the petitioners have become too old and directing them to undergo imprisonment at this stage would cause them great prejudice. The order sheets reveal that they were in custody for some time.
8. Taking a liberal view, while confirming the order of conviction, I modify the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the petitioners. So far as fine is concerned, I direct that each of the petitioners shall pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- (Three thousand) in default, shall undergo S.I. for a period of one year. It is further directed that out of the fine collected, a sum of Rs. 9,000/- (Nine thousand) shall be paid to the three injured persons towards compensation.
With the aforesaid modification in sentence, the Criminal Revision is dismissed.