Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1237 (RAJ)

Ghasi Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2006-04-19

K.C.SHARMA

body2006
Judgment K.C. Sharma, J.-This criminal appeal arises out of the Judgment and order dated 05.08.1985 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur thereby convicting appellant Ghasi Ram for offence under Section 324, IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigourous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the accused appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant frankly conceded that he does not wish to challenge the conviction of the appellant under Section 324, IPC and in my view, rightly so, inasmuch as the evidence on record clearly establishes that the appellant inflicted injury by knife in the abdomen of Mangi Lal, though simple in nature. The ocular evidence of injured Mangi Lal is corroborated by the medical evidence. 4. However, the learned Counsel submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court has committed error in not extending the benefit of probation. Counsel submits that the learned trial Court while hearing the arguments on the quantum of sentence has declined to consider the provisions of Sections 360 and 361, CrPC and under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 in favour of the appellant only on the ground that the appellant inflicted injury by knife in the abdomen of the injured. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that simply because the injury was in the abdomen of the injured, the trial Court was not justified in refusing to grant the benefit of provision of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the appellant, more so when the case was such which could have been dealt with under the provisions of the Act and there is legislative mandate contended in Section 361, CrPC that the case of such accused persons should have been dealt with under Section 4 of the Act unless for the special reasons to be recorded. Thus, the Counsel for the appellant has prayed that the appellant should be extended the benefit of probation. In support of his contention, Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the Judgment of this Court in the case of Leela & Ors. vs. State, 1988 RCC 76. 5. Thus, the Counsel for the appellant has prayed that the appellant should be extended the benefit of probation. In support of his contention, Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the Judgment of this Court in the case of Leela & Ors. vs. State, 1988 RCC 76. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has not been able to controvert the settled legal proposition regarding grant of benefit of the Act. 6. By now it is well settled that the provisions of Section 361, CrPC are mandatory in nature and if the case of the accused is such which could have been dealt with under the provisions of Section 360, CrPC, or under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, then for not dealing the case of the accused under the aforesaid provisions, the Court shall record special reasons. So far as the special reasons within the meaning of Section 361, CrPC are concerned, they not only relate to the circumstances in which the offence was committed but also relate to the character, antecedents and age of the accused. On a perusal of the impugned Judgment it appears that the trial Court has not recorded special reasons for not extending the benefit of Section 4 of the Act to the accused appellant. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant deserves to be extended the benefit of Section 4 of the Act. 7. Consequently, the appeal of the appellant is partly allowed. Conviction of the appellant under Section 324, IPC is maintained. However, taking into consideration the provisions of Section 361, CrPC., and there being no material adverse to the appellant in respect of his character, age antecedents etc., it is hereby ordered that the accused appellant shall be released on entering into a bond within a period of one month from today in the sum of Rs. 1,000/-alongwith one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court to appear and receive sentence as and when called upon to do so during a period of one year and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. 8. It is, also ordered that under Section 5 of the Act, the appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/-as compensation to injured Mangi Lal. 8. It is, also ordered that under Section 5 of the Act, the appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/-as compensation to injured Mangi Lal. This amount shall be deposited by the appellant within two months from today before the trial Court failing which the trial Court shall take steps to recover the same in accordance with law. On depositing/realising the amount of compensation, the same shall be paid to the injured Mangi Lal.