HALLU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Criminal Case No. 340/85 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Doongarpur by his judgment dated 18.11.1996 had convicted and sentenced all the accused petitioners under Sections 326 IPC or 326/34 IPC. An appeal was filed by the accused petitioners and their Criminal Appeal No. 39/96 was decided by Sessions Judge, Doongarpur on 12.7.1997 and accused petitioners Hallu, Mangla, and Hanja were convicted only under Section 323 IPC and they were given the benefit of probation under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 for a period of two years on the condition that each of them will submit one bail and one personal bond of Rs. 3,000/- each. They are also ordered to pay compensation of Rs. 1,000/- each for the victims. Out of the amount of Rs. 3,000/-, Rs. 750/- each were to be given to each of the four injured persons. So far as accused petitioner Laxman is concerned, he was convicted by the said Appellate Court under Sections 326, and 323 IPC and he was ordered to suffer two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for Section 326 IPC. No separate sentence was passed against him for the offence under Section 323 IPC by the Appellate Court.

(2.) Now accused petitioners Hallu, Mangla and Hanja have filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 331/1997. In this petition they have prayed that no case is made out against them. So they have claimed acquittal from the charges of Section 323 IPC. Accused petitioner Laxman has filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 299/97 in which he has prayed that he should be acquitted from the charges under Section 326 and 323 IPC and in the alternative he has prayed that since he has already suffered jail for thirteen days during the trial so he wants that he should be released on undergone sentence because the matter has grown about 30 (thirty) years old.

(3.) In the aforesaid background, I have heard both sides. The learned Public Prosecutor has not seriously opposed the prayer of accused petitioner Laxman regarding release undergone sentence but has argued that no case of acquittal is made out in the matter. So he has prayed that revision petition of three accused petitioners who have already been granted the benefit of probation by the Appellate Court should be dismissed and the revision petition of accused petitioner Laxman only may be partly accepted.