MANOJ TYAGI Vs. GAURAV @ CHOTU AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a complainants Appeal against the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 28.5.2010 in Sessions Case No. 96/2009 through which the Respondents have been convicted for committing offence punishable under Section 307/34 Indian Penal Code (IPC). Pursuant to the notice issued in the appeal (which is confined to the question of sentence) the Respondents/accused have appeared and are represented through counsel.

(2.) IT is urged by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that in view of the findings arrived at by the Trial Court, convicting the Respondents of a serious charge under Section 307 IPC, the sentencing choice adopted by it i.e. to release them on probation is contrary to law. It is urged that Section 363 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 do not permit a Criminal Court to admit any convict who has committed such offences which are punishable for imprisonment for more then ten years, for life to probation. It is also urged additionally that the Trial Court did not have the benefit of proper records since the report of the Probation Officer received by it, did not reveal involvement one of the Respondents i.e. Respondent No. 1 -Manoj in another Criminal Case No. 109/2007 P.S. Swaroop Nagar which is pending before the Court of Paramjit Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi.

(3.) SECTION 360(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as under: