Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1991 DIGILAW 400 (RAJ)

Sardara Ram v. State of Rajasthan

1991-04-24

FAROOQ HASAN

body1991
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26-8-1983 passed by Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu whereby the accused appellant has been found guilty for the offence under Section 325 and 323 IPC and various sentence have been passed against the appellant. 2. At the very out set, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to assail the finding of the learned trial on the point of conviction. He mainly submits that the occurrence took place in the year 1982 and after a lapse of nine years it will not be fair and proper to send the accused in jail to serve out the sentence. The appellant is a person of Scheduled Caste and he is the only earning member of his family, so in case the appellant is sent to jail then a lo of hardship shall be faced not only by him but his family members also because of this convicton. The appellant has lost his service because prior to the passing of the judgment. He was serving in Hindustan Copper Ltd., Khetri and after conviction his services were terminated Learned counsel therefore, submits that there is noting on record to show that the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act can be denied to the appellant, so looking to *he facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that appellant is not a previous convict. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant be extended the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. 3. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant submits that looking to the injuries on the person of injured Jokhi Ram appellant is not entitled to get the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that in case the appellant is given the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act then the injured be compensated under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The learned trial Court while passing the sentences against the appellant failed to give any special reasons in not extending the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to the appellant as it is required under Section 360 Cr. The learned trial Court while passing the sentences against the appellant failed to give any special reasons in not extending the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to the appellant as it is required under Section 360 Cr. P.C. In view of the principle laid down in the case of reported in AIR 1979 SC p. 964 I am of the opinion that the appellant can be given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act but at the same time looking to the number of injuries sustained by the injured I feel it justified that the injured be compensated. 4. A look at the record shows that there is a consistent evidence against the appellant for causing grievous injury on the person of injured and there is no reason to interfere in the finding of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court. Thus the conviction of the appellant is maintained but instead of passing any sentence I feel it justified that the appellant be released on probation on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2000/- (rupees two thousand) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu with this condition that the appellant shall maintain peace and be of good behaviours for a period of six months failing which the appellant shall serve out the sentence passed against him by the trial Court. Looking to the financial status and the profession of the appellant I feel it justified that the appellant to directed to pay Rs. 1500/- as compensation to the injured. The appellant is further directed to furnish the bond within a period of two months and deposit the amount of compensation within two months. If the amount of compensation is deposited in the Court of Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu then he is directed to pay the same to the injured immediately. 5. Accordingly, this appeal is, therefore, partly allowed. The learned counsel for the appellant is further directed that no further time shall be extended for furnishing the bond and depositing the amount of compensation. *******