PRITHVI RAJ Vs. KAMLESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two interesting questions both revolving round Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (in short the Act) are involved in this appeal. Though the questions are essentially of law, a brief reference to the factual aspect would be necessary.

(2.) Appellants faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC). Learned Sessions Judge, Karauli, Rajasthan, held that though accusations relating to Sections 307, 307 read with Section 149 were not proved against the accused persons, offence of Section 324 IPC was proved against accused-appellant Prithvi Raj while offence under Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC was proved against the others. Offence in terms of Section 323 IPC was held to be proved against Tej Raj and offence under Section 323 read with Section 149 was proved against others. Offence under Section 148 IPC was also held to be proved. After hearing the accused persons on the question of sentence, it was noticed that there was no allegation of any earlier involvement in crime against any of the accused persons, the incident was an old one, two of the accused were students and accused Ratan was an aged person. Taking into account all these facts the trial Court held that compelling reasons were there for the accused persons to reform in life. Accordingly while imposing sentence the trial Court extended benefits under the Act and held that they were to be on probation for two years to keep good behaviour and were to execute personal security of Rs. 3000/- each with similar amount of bail bonds. Each was ordered to pay Rs. 1500/ as compensation, out of which Rs. 7500/ - was directed to be paid to injured Radhey Shyam.

(3.) An appeal purported to be under Section 11(2) of the Act was filed before the High Court by the complainant contending that the benefits of Section 3/4 of the Act were wrongly extended to the accused persons. It is to be noted that an appeal was preferred by the accused persons against the direction for payment of compensation. Same was registered as SB Criminal Appeal No. 458/98 and was dismissed. The High Court held that Section 5 of the Act permitted compensation to be awarded when benefit of Section 4 of the Act was extended.