HARKH CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 23.4.2009 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, District Churu whereby the learned Judge has partly allowed the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner and has modified the judgment dated 15.9.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Taranagar District Churu whereby the learned Magistrate had convicted non-petitioner No. 2 for offence under Sections 341,'323 and 325 I.P.C. and has sentenced him to a maximum period of six months simple imprisonment, the petitioner has approached this Court. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that while partly allowing the appeal, the learned Judge has granted the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act ('the Act', for short) to the non-petitioner No. 2.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 26.3.2002, the petitioner had lodged a written report at Police Station, Taranagar whereby he had claimed that between 9-10 A.M. while he and his brother Jamna Ram tried to board a bus, they were attacked by Juglal, Deeparam, Mahaveer, Babulal, Vinod and Subhash. According to him, Juglal struck him from behind. Consequently, he suffered injuries. On the basis of this report, a formal F.I.R. was registered under Sections 341, 324 and 325 I.P.C. In order to support its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses and submitted nine documents. In order to defend themselves, defence examined six witnesses and submitted two documents.

(3.) After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court convicted the non-petitioner No. 2 for offence under Sec. 323 I.P.C. and sentenced him to three months of simple imprisonment, convicted him for offence under Sec. 341 I.P.C. and sentenced him to ten days simple imprisonment, convicted him for offence under Sec. 325 I.P.C. and sentence him to six months of simple imprisonment and imposed fire of Rs. 1,000.00. It further directed that in case of default thereof, the non-petitioner shall further undergo a sentence. of one month of simple imprisonment. Since non-petitioner was aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.9.2007, he filed an appeal before the learned Judge. While partly accepting the appeal and while upholding the conviction, the learned Judge directed that the benefit of the Act should be given to the non-petitioner No. 2. Hence, this petition before this Court.