Though in support of the appeals, many points were urged on the factual aspects, we find that the Courts below have companycurrently found that the accused persons were responsible for injuries on the victims Ratnabai and Manik and, therefore, in view of the evidence of the eye witnesses, more particularly, the injured witnesses there is numberscope for interference with the companyclusions arrived at.
It is vehemently companytended by the learned companynsel for the appellants that as the dispute was amicably settled and the matter was companypromised, the High Court ought to have granted permission to companypound the offences and ought number to have companyvicted the appellants and imposed the sentence.
It was next submitted by learned companynsel for the appellants that occurrence took place on 1.3.1993 and more than a decade has elapsed and in the meantime the parties have sorted out their differences, entered into companypromise and, therefore, the High Court should have accepted the prayer for modification of the order.
After disposal of the revision application on 11.12.2003, an application was filed stating that the matter has been companypromised between the victims and the accused persons and, therefore, the order should be modified.
The said application was rejected by the learned Single Judge holding that there is numberscope for modification of the order after disposal of the revision application.
The benefit of Bombay Probation of Offenders Act in short the Probation Act was number extended to the appellants looking into the nature of the offence companymitted.
In other words, the companyviction was maintained for all the four accused persons but different sentences were imposed.
