RATAN MIA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision arises from a judgment of the Sessions Judge Cachar given on 27th July 1981 in Criminal Appeal No. 15(1) of 1981 dismissing the appeal from a judgment and order of conviction of the Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class Karimganj passed in G.R. Case No. 191 of 1978 convicting the petitioners under S. 377, IPC and sentencing them to R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs. 100/-each.

(2.) The only submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners may be released on probation of good conduct. He has drawn my attention to the petition dt. 25 July 1981 filed by the petitioners before the Sessions Judge praying for releasing them on probation of good conduct stating that they repented what they had done; and that they were under 21 years of age; and that they had no any previous conviction; and that they may be given a chance that they may be good and law abiding citizen. The Sessions Judge rejected the petition on the ground that the plea was not raised during hearing and the judgment had been already delivered.

(3.) In the present case the petitioners have been found guilty of committing the offence under S. 377,I.P.C. The offence under S.377 is punishable with imprisonment of life, or with imprisonment of either description of a term which may extend to ten years. Assuming that the petitioners were under 21 years of age, as imprisonment for life can also be awarded for the offence under S. 377, IPC, a person found guilty of such an offence would not be entitled to claim the benefit of S. 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act. To hold otherwise would have the effect of ignoring the expression "but not imprisonment for life" in S. 6. The fact that imprisonment for a lesser term can also be awarded for the offence would not take it out of the category of the offence punishable with imprisonment for life. Therefore, the petitioners will not be entitled to be released on probation of good conduct.