SONA DEVI AND THREE Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of present Criminal Appeal, convictsappellants have challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 17th April, 2003, whereby the accusedappellants Smt. Sona Devi, Smt. Surja Devi, Chandru and Girbir Chand were convicted of the offences punishable under Section 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, Section 324 IPC read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 325 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC and were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 323 read with 34 IPC, one year's rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC and three years' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1000/ -, in default of payment of which, they were required to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved against their conviction and sentences, present Criminal Appeal was preferred the appellants.

(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 accused -appellants are not previous convicts, 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 (Sections 323 r/w 34, 324 r/w 34 and 325 r/w 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.