RAM JIWAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVISIONIST Ram Jiwan was tried in the Court of Shri M.M. Sharma, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari under Sections 323/324/34 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Khol along with Smt. Vidya Devi. The learned magistrate believed the prosecution evidence and found the revision - 1st - accused Ram Jiwan guilty of the offence under Sections 323/324/34 of Indian Penal Code. Vidya Devi was also convicted under the aforesaid Section and she was given benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and released on probation for a period of one year. Revisionist Ram Jiwan was, however, sentenced to undergo R.I. for three months under Section 323/34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced further to undergo R. I. for one year and six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - under Section 323/34 of Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to suffer imprisonment for a period of one month. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Rum Jiwan filed an appeal against his conviction and sentences as ordered by the learned Magistrate. The appeal was heard and decided by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari who found no merit in the appeal and dismissed the same.

(2.) FEELING aggrieved against the dismissal of the appeal Ram Jiwan filed this revision. The revision came up for hearing at the time of admission and it was admitted only qua quantum of sentence and notice for the same was issued to Advocate General Haryana, the findings of the Courts below regarding the conviction of the revisionist under Sections 323/34 and 323/34 of Indian Penal Code were upheld.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist contended that the revisionist being the first offender should be given benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and instead of being sent to suffer the sentence he should be ordered to be released on probation it was contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that there arc no such circumstance in this case which may be held relevant for denying him the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. A perusal of the order of the learned trial Magistrate will go to show that a prayer in this regard was made before him but it was declined by the learned Magistrate only on the ground that he inflicted injuries. The revisionist has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 323/324/34 of Indian Penal Code and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no valid reasons to deny the revisionist the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.