MUNNU Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision, is directed against the judg­ment and order dated 04,03.2002, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in criminal appeal No. 16 of 1999, whereby said court affirmed the conviction and sentence, recorded against the revisionist-Munnu, relating to offence punishable under Section 429 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short I.P.C.)

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the par­ties and perused the lower court record.

(3.) HAVING gone through the oral tes­timony of the complainant, which is sup­ported by the medical evidence, on record, this Court does not find any er­ror of law, committed by the trial court in convicting the accused/revisionist on the charge of offence punishable under Sec­tion 429 I.P.C. However, on the point of sentence, learned counsel for the revi­sionist, pleaded that Section 429 of I.P.C., provides maximum sentence of imprison­ment for five years or fine or with both. It is argued that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and nature of offence, the Magistrate should have released the convict (revisionist) on proba­tion, on executing bond to keep his con­duct good. However, this Court is of the view that considering the fact that the cow got disabled after suffering the injury at the hands of the revisionist, the courts below have committed no error of law in not giving benefit of Section 4 of Proba­tion of Offenders Act, 1958. No doubt, the convict could have been granted ben­efit under such section but it was the dis­cretion of the trial court to take a decision after considering the facts and circum­stances of the case. This Court, is of the view that since the revisionist had been earlier arrested and released on bail, thereafter when his appeal was dismissed by the appellate court, he was again taken into custody and granted bail by this Court on 06.03.2002, as such, it would meet the ends of justice if the re­visionist is sentenced to period already undergone by him.