SHEO RAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Sheo Raj Singh, whose conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Magistrate being confirmed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, in appeal has preferred this revision petition, saying that both the trial court and the appellate court, have acted illegally in exercising their jurisdiction against the material available with them and sentenced the petitioner wrongly who was not given the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 read with Section 360(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) THE petitioner stood convicted for an offence under Sections 304-A and 279 of the Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 18 months and three months respectively under the said provisions of the I.P.C. for having caused the death of one Hardwari on 18.1.1987 who was struck down by the petitioner with his motor cycle driven by him rashly and negligently.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner prayed for the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 read with Section 360(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, both before the trial Magistrate and the appellate court, for releasing him on probation for the offence committed by him, was due to his negligence of driving his vehicle rashly rashly and negligently and hitting a man from behind who afterwards succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. He had no intention to kill the deceased nor there was any previous record available showing that the petitioner is a previous convict and his antecedents were that of an offender and was therefore not entitled to the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, to maintain good conduct.