SARDARA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26-8-1983 passed by Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu whereby the accused appellant has been found guilty for the offence under Sec. 325 and 323 Penal Code and various sentence have been passed against the appellant.

(2.) At the very out set, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to assail the finding of the learned trial on the point of conviction. He mainly submits that the occurrence took place in the year 1982 and after a lapse of nine years it will not be fair and proper to send the accused in jail to serve out the sentence. The appellant is a person of Scheduled Caste and he is the only earning member of his family, so in case the appellant is sent to jail then a lo of hardship shall be faced not only by him but his family members also because of this convicton. The appellant has lost his service because prior to the passing of the judgment. He was serving in Hindustan Copper Ltd., Khetri and after conviction his services were terminated Learned counsel therefore, submits that there is noting on record to show that the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act can be denied to the appellant, so looking to *he facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that appellant is not a previous convict. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant be extended the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act.

(3.) On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant submits that looking to the injuries on the person of injured Jokhi Ram appellant is not entitled to get the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that in case the appellant is given the benefit of Sec. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act then the injured be compensated under Sec. 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The learned trial Court while passing the sentences against the appellant failed to give any special reasons in not extending the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to the appellant as it is required under Sec. 360 Cr. P.C. In view of the principle laid down in the case of reported in AIR 1979 SC p. 964 I am of the opinion that the appellant can be given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act but at the same time looking to the number of injuries sustained by the injured I feel it justified that the injured be compensated.