PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, a convict under S. 324, IPC, has preferred this revision against the order of sentence of fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to three months' rigorous imprisonment, passed on 14-1-1988, by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Morena, in Criminal Appeal No. 87/1986, preferred against the judgment dated 25-2-1986 in Criminal Case No. 108/1984, passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sabalgarh.

(2.) The incident occurred on 18-1-1985 following a quarrel between PW 2 Anandibai, the injured, and acquitted co-accused Lalaram, the uncle of the applicant. A 'danda' of 'chabutra' fell down because of the dash by Lalaram. PW 2 started abusing on altercation between the two and on saying of Lalaram the accused/applicant caused a simple injury to Anandibai with a 'Farsa', resulting in an incised wound, 3 1/2 cm x 1/2 x 1 1/2 cm on left middle of head (parietal). The trial Court convicted the applicant under S. 324, IPC, and sentenced him to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, one month's simple imprisonment. Co-accused Lalaram was also convicted under S. 324/34, IPC. In appeal, Lalaram was acquitted, but the conviction of the applicant under Section 324, IPC, was maintained reducing the sentence of imprisonment to that of fine only, which was enhanced from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 1000/-, in default, to three months' rigorous imprisonment.

(3.) Shri D. N. Kulsharestha, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the applicant is an employee in Nagarpalika, Kailaras, as a pump attender; the applicant being a first offender ought to have been granted the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short, the 'Act'), and for not granting the benefit under S. 360, Cr. P.C., or under the Act, special reasons ought to have been recorded under S. 361, Cr. P.C., which is imperative.