KALURAM Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has not argued on the merits and has restricted his submissions only to the question that the petitioner should be released on probation of good conduct. Learned counsel urges that the complainant used to tease the girls and that the accused, petitioner was also given a beating 1 when he protested and it was only when the accused-petitioner was given a beating that he took a rod in his hand and caused injuries to the complainant.

(2.) Both the courts below have accepted the prosecution story that the accused petitioner had caused injuries to the complainant with an iron rod and one of the injuries so caused on the head of the complainant was grievous in nature as there was committed fracture of the frontal bone on the left side. There were also other injuries caused to the complainant. The accused-petitioner was convicted under section 325 I.P.C and was awarded two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 for the aforesaid offence by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2 First Class, Shri Ganganagar. He was also convicted under section 323 and was sentenced to three month's simple imprisonment. On appeal, the conviction of the petitioner was maintained by the learned Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar, both under sections 325 and 323 I. P. C. and the sentence under section 325 was reduced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500.00, while the sentence under section 323 I.P.C. as awarded by the trial Magistrate was maintained.

(3.) I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. The petitioner was not convicted on any earlier occasion. It also appears from the record that the offence was not a pre-meditated one as it appears that on the spur of the moment the petitioner took the iron rod in his hand and caused injuries to the complainant, some of which were grievous in nature The offence under section 325 has no doubt been found to have been committed by the petitioner. It also appears from the statement of the accused that he also received injuries, although the injury report was not produced so as to prove the injuries sustained by the petitioner. It also appears from the record that the accused petitioner objected to the complainants teasing the girls. Considering all these facts and circumstances and the nature of the offence, the manner in which it has been committed, I consider it proper to give the benefit to the accused-petitioner of the provisions of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.