RAJ KUMAR AND TWO Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of present criminal appeal, accused -appellants have challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 28.07.2003 / 29.07.2003, whereby the accused -appellant Shiv Kumar was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and co -appellants Raj Kumar, and Baij Nath were convicted for the offences punishable under Section 324 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. All the convictsappellants were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year in connection with respective offences which have been proved against them.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submitted at the very outset that he has nothing to say on the merits of the case. He prayed that the accusedappellants are not previous convicts and they have already remained in jail for one month earlier, therefore, they should be granted benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Learned counsel for the State is not averse to the idea of granting benefit of Reformatory -law to the appellants, in the absence of there being anything against them in the past.

(3.) IN view of the above submission of learned counsel for the appellants, the conviction of the appellants as regards the offences complained of against them (Sec. 324 IPC and Sec. 324 r/w Sec. 34 IPC) is affirmed. Otherwise also, on the basis of evidence on record, there appears to be no reason to interfere with the findings (of conviction) arrived at by the Trial Court.