PAWAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction dated 27.1.2003 and the order of sentence dated 29.1.2003, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, whereby the appellants were held guilty for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34, IPC, and ordered to undergo the following sentences: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_572_LAWS(P&H)12_2013_1.html</FRM>

(2.) At the very outset learned counsel for the appellants submits that he does not want to challenge the judgment of conviction of the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34, IPC. He, however, contends that the occurrence had taken place in the year 2000; the injured had deliberately trespassed into the fields belonging to the appellants and was removing the fodder; the appellants had concededly caused simple injuries and most of them were on non-vital parts of the person of the injured; the appellants are not previous convicts; and that during course of trial and appeal, both the appellants remained on bail and the said concession was not misused by them, therefore, they are entitled to the benefit of probation as enshrined in Section 360, Cr.P.C.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer of the learned counsel for the appellants to release them on probation. However, he concedes that the appellants are neither previous convicts nor involved in any other case. He has placed on record the affidavits of the Superintendent, District Jail, Sonepat, showing the period of incarceration suffered by the appellants which are taken on record.