STATE OF HARYANA Vs. RAJ PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel. The respondent-Raj Pal faced a charge under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code in Criminal case No. 97/2 of 23.4.1986 before Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak. After trial he was accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year, to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. The respondent-accused preferred appeal No. 39 of 1987 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties sustained the conviction under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, but ordered that the respondent-accused be released on probation on his furnishing Probation bonds in the sum of Rs. 2000/- with one surety for the like amount to keep peace and be of good behaviour during the said period of one year and to appear and receive the sentence if and when called upon to do so. He also directed that the fine amount of Rs. 1000/- be paid as compensation to Chandbir PW. It is against this order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, ordering the accused Rajpal to be released on probation that the State of Haryana has come forward with this appeal. The complainant has also filed Cr. Revision No. 336 of 1988, which was ordered to be put up along with the criminal appeal. By this judgment, the appeal and the revision are being disposed of.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the both sides.

(3.) ANOTHER point urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that before granting this relief to the accused, the Court was bound to call for a report from the Probation Officer, in view of the provisions of Section 4(2), but no such report appears to have been called for in this case. But it is not necessary for me go into this question in view of the specific provisions contained in Section 4(1) that the provisions of this Section cannot be applied to a case where the accused is found guilty of an offence punishable with imprisonment for life. Therefore, on this ground alone the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Rohtak, ordering that the accused be released on Probation has to be set aside.