NATHABHAI MULUBHAI BABRIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application is filed by the original first informant under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned order, whereby benefit of probation for a period of five years was granted to respondent No.2 - original accused, who came to be convicted for an offence under Sec. 324 of the Indian Penal Code, as also under Sec. 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), and directed to undergo three years' simple imprisonment for an offence under Sec. 324 of the Indian Penal Code, as also five years' simple imprisonment for an offence under Sec. 3(1)(x) of "the Act" with fine. As such, as recorded in the impugned order, after pronouncing the conviction and sentence, instead of sending respondent No.2 - accused into custody, he was ordered to be released on probation for a period of five years.

(2.) The petitioner is the original first informant, who registered an FIR against respondent No.2 - accused, as pursuant to an application made to the Mines and Minerals Department, the officer concerned, visited lease site of the accused, which led to a quarrel with the complainant and not only he was assaulted by the present respondent No.2 - accused and other accused, who appears to be the sons of the present respondent No.2, they also caused injuries to the petitioner and he was insulted of his caste and threatened of dire consequences. The respondent No.2 - accused is said to have assaulted the petitioner with gupti and iron pipe. On conclusion of investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused, which led to trial in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge (Atrocity), Rajula in Special Atrocity Case No.16 of 2013.

(3.) On conclusion of trial, the learned Judge vide judgment and order dtd. 29/1/2021, convicted and sentenced respondent No.2 - accused for the offences punishable under the Penal Code as also under "the Act". However, instead of implementing the sentence, he was granted benefit of probation for a period of five years and was not sent to the custody. It is that very order, so far as grant of probation is concerned, is challenged by the petitioner - complainant by way of present revision application.