LACCHIRAM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As none appears for the petitioner, Shri Arvind Gokhale, Advocate, who is present, is requested to act as an amicus curaie. He acceded to the request and heard. Also heard Shri Desai, learned Panel Lawyer for the State.

(2.) The petitioner stands convicted under Sec. 325, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs. 300/- or in default of payment of fine to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. The trial Court further directed that in the event the fine being deposited, Rs. 300/- be paid as compensation to the injured Deva.

(3.) Shri Gokhale, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the appellate Court was wrong in holding that it was not incumbent on the prosecution to have explained the injuries sustained by the co-accused Mangtya and that the injuries were caused at a different place in an altogether different incident. The next submission made by him is that even if the petitioner is held to be guilty, yet it was not a case where a young boy, shown to be 22 years of age, should have been refused the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and both the courts below, according to him, have failed in not invoking. Sec. 360, Cr. P.C. Shri Desai, learned Panel Lawyer for the State submitted that the conviction is supported by the evidence on record. He, however. added that so far as consideration of ground of probation is concerned, if it is made out, he would not come in the way.