ORDER
Fakhruddin, J.
1. This revision is against the order of conviction dated 26-4-1994 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ambikapur in Cr. A, No. 87/1993 whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant/applicant against the conviction recorded by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class in Criminal Case No. 656/1990 under Sections 354 and 323, IPC has been dismissed.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that on 31-10-1990 at 12 o’clock while Parbatia Bai (P.W. 1) was returning from the well, accused met her and followed her. He asked where her husband has gone. Parbatia told that her husband has gone for earning wages. He demanded liquor from Parbatia, but Parbatia refused. He tried to drag Parbatia and took her near the Jack-Fruit Tree (Kathal Ped) and slapped Parbatia. Parbatia cried, her bangles were broken and her Saree had torn, then the accused ran away from the spot. Parbatia complained the matter to Muniram, her husband. Both of them then went to the police station on 2-11-1990 at 11:00 a.m. and lodged the F.I.R. Offence under Sections 354 and 323 was registered. She was sent for medical examination. Ex. P-5 is the medical report. The applicant was arrested and the challan was filed.
3. The applicant abjured the guilt and stated that he has been falsely implicated because of some land dispute.
4. The prosecution examined P.W. 1 Parbatia, P.W. 2 Phulbasiya, P.W. 3 Muniram, and P.W. 4 Subrandas, P.W. 5 Bairagi, P.W. 6 Pooran Singh, the seizure witnesses, and P.W. 7 Kumbhakaran Rajwade, who have supported the prosecution.
5. The accused in his defence examined Anukram as D.W. 1, who has also stated that the accused had demanded liquor from Parbatia. He was not present at the spot but was present at some distance.
6. The learned Trial Magistrate after considering the entire material and the evidence, especially the evidence of Parbatia (P.W. 1) which is corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses, held the accused liable for the commission of the offence. The Appellate Court after considering the entire material confirmed the findings recorded by the Trial Magistrate.
7. This Court has also gone through the evidence of the witnesses and found that the evidence of P.W. 1 Parbatia is categorical to the extent that the accused met her and demanded liquor and when she refused to give liquor the accused caught hold of her and took her near Jack-Fruit tree, and that P.W. 2 Phulbasiya is the lady who after hearing the cries of Parbatia came out of the house and saw the accused had slapped. The evidence of the seizure witnesses also go to show that the bangles were broken. Even D.W. 1 Anukram in para 1 of his statement has stated that the accused had demanded the liquor from Parbatia.
8. Having thus considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record, the conviction recorded by the Courts below is maintained.
9. Now the question remains about the sentence of fine. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the accused is serving as Peon in the Education Department. His service record is said to be good. He is having five children, three daughters and two sons, and the conviction awarded to him may result in removal from service. Therefore, the benefits of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 may be granted to him.
10. Section 4 of aforesaid Act reads as under :–
“4. Power of Court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct.– (1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the Court by which the person is found guilty is of the opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period not exceeding three years, as the Court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour:
Provided that the Court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the Court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond.
(2) Before making any order under Sub-section (1), the Court shall take into consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation to the case.
(3) When an order under Sub-section (1) is made, the Court may, if it is of opinion that in the interests of the offender and of the public it is expedient so to do in addition pass a supervision order directing that the offender shall remain under the supervision of a probation officer named in the order during such period, not being less than one year, as may be specified therein, and may in such supervision order impose such conditions as it deems necessary for the due supervision of the offender.
(4) The Court making a supervision order under Sub-section (3) shall require the offender, before he is released, to enter into a bond, with or without sureties to observe the conditions specified in such order and such additional conditions with respect to residence, abstention from intoxicants or any other matter as the Court may, having regard to the particular circumstances, consider fit to impose for preventing a repetition of the same offence or a commission of other offences by the offender.
(5) The Court making a supervision order under Sub-section (3)
shall explain to the offender the terms and conditions of the order and shall forthwith furnish one copy of the supervision order to each of the offenders, the sureties, if any, and the probation officer concerned.”
11. Section 12 of the aforesaid Act reads as under :–
“12. Removal of disqualification attaching to conviction.– Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of Section 3 or Section 4 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law :
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a person who, after his release under section, is subsequently sentenced for the original offence.”
12. Having thus considered the provisions of Section 4 as well as Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, in the opinion of this Court, it would be just and proper that the applicant, who is in service and his service record is found to be good and also he is having five children and is the sole bread earner, the sentence of fine even imposed on him may attach disqualification, be given the benefit of provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. The State counsel was specifically asked, who stated that he has no objection to this effect.
13. Under the circumstances, the applicant be released on probation, keeping in view the provisions of Sections 4 and 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2000/- to maintain peace and tranquility during the period of six months. Instead of depositing the fine amount, he shall pay Rs. 1000/- as compensation payable to the complainant Parbatia Bai (P.W. 1) and the said compensation will not attach any disqualification. If the said complainant is not alive, the compensation may be paid to her legal heirs.
14. With the above directions, the revision is partly allowed.