JUDGMENT 1. :- By way of instant appeal, the appellant has come up before this Court against the judgment & order of the learned Judge, Special Court, SC/ST Cases, Kota dated 1.7.1999 passed in Sessions Case No.4/97 whereby, he convicted and sentenced the accused appellant thus: CONVICTION SENTENCE -1 u/Sec.3(1)(ii) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) At, 1989. 6 months RI with a fine Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine, further undergo 1 month RI. 2. Brief facts which are relevant for deciding this appeal are thus:- 3. PW2 Shivshankar had lodged a written report vide Exh.P.1 at Police Station Khatoli to the effect that his daughter Foranti, aged 11 years, on 25.7.1996 was at the fields for taking care of of the same. At about 2 PM on the said date the accused came there and threw her on earth and told her to sleep with him. On her raising hue and cry, Kashiram Meena and Ramkaran Dhobi, neighbours, came to the rescue of the prosecutrix and saved her. 4. On the basis of the written report (Exh.P.1) police registrered a case for commission of offence under Section 354 Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for short "the Act" and submitted the charge sheet. 5. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial and the learned trial Court framed charge for the commission of aforesaid offences to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 6 witnesses. Statement of the accused was also recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. and in his defence, he examined DW1 Banwari and DW2 Bhagirath as witnesses. 6. The learned Judge, Special Court, SC/ST Cases, Kota vide its impugned judgment & order dated 1.7.1999 passed in Sessions Case No. 4/97 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for commission of offence under Section 3(1)(H) of the Act as aforesaid. Hence this appeal. 7. Mr. S.K. Jindal, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the trial Court while imposing the sentence upon the appellant, suspended his sentence till 16.8.1999 so as to enable him prefer appeal before this Court, hence the said liberty be not withdrawn. 8. Hence this appeal. 7. Mr. S.K. Jindal, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the trial Court while imposing the sentence upon the appellant, suspended his sentence till 16.8.1999 so as to enable him prefer appeal before this Court, hence the said liberty be not withdrawn. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the accused-appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and also examined the relevant material available on the record. 9. It has further been contended by the appellant's counsel that the learned judge, SC/ST Act Cases has not recorded its finding on the question of extending benefit of probation to the accused as per the requirements of section 361 Cr.P.C. The law is well settled in such cases that where the offence is compoundable within the scheme of Section 320 Indian Penal Code and which are punishable with short sentence not exceeding 3 years and this being a case where the accused has been convicted to 6 months R.I. with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further undergo 1 month R.I. for commission of offences as aforesaid, the trial Court should have recorded its findings on the question of sentence as aforesaid. 10. In my view, it is a fit case in which the trial Court should have examined:-(a) Either to extend the benefit of probation to the accused if he is not a previous convict having regard to his character, age and previous conduct after calling for the report from Probationary Officer and (b) that the offence is compoundable in nature, hence, the same be either compounded by the parties. 11. I am fortified in my observations from the judgment of this Court in the matter of Daler Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan 1998(2) RLR 498 =1999(1) WLC 274 , wherein the similar view was taken by this Court. Admittedly, the accused was 18 years of age as per the evidence available on the record as on the date of occurrence. The impugned-judgment & order of the trial Court dated 1.7.1999 also suffers from the aforesaid inconsistency since it has not taken into account the fact that the accused was not a previous convict and hence could have been released on probation subject to imposition of such reasonable condition/conditions as would be necessary in the interest of justice. 12. The impugned-judgment & order of the trial Court dated 1.7.1999 also suffers from the aforesaid inconsistency since it has not taken into account the fact that the accused was not a previous convict and hence could have been released on probation subject to imposition of such reasonable condition/conditions as would be necessary in the interest of justice. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the accused-appellant deserves to be given the benefit of probation as per requirement of Section 4(3) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 read with section 361 Cr.P.C. having regard to the fact that he was 18 years of age as on the date of occurrence and is not a previous convict. 13. As a result of above discussion, the appeal is allowed. The impugned-judgment & order dated 1.7.1999 passed by the learned Judge, SC/ST Act Cases, Kota in Sessions Case No. 4/97 convicting the accused-appellant for commission of offences under Section 3(1)(II) of the Act and sentencing him to undergo 6 months R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further undergo 1 month R.I., is quashed and set-aside. It is accordingly directed that accused-appellant Chanderbhan alias Chanderprakash son of Pooranmal be released on probation if not wanted in any other case with the stipulation that he shall maintain peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year provided, he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Five (sic Ten ?) Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.Appeal Allowed. *******