RAMJI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bharatpur dated June 23, 1971, whereby he has given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioner Radhey, Dharmi, Sitaram and Khilli and ordered them to by released on executing bonds of Rs. 2,000/ - each for keeping the peace for a period of 2 years, but he ordered petitioners Ramjilal and Yadram to undergo 6 months' rigorous imprisonment Under Section 325 I.P.C. 3 months' rigorous imprisonment Under Section 325 and 149 I.P.C. and 2 months' rigorous imprisonment Under Section 147 I.P.C. and maintained various amounts of fine.

(2.) THE circumstances, which I need notice for the disposal of this application briefly stated, are these. Panchia kept Mst. Chandra Kala, alleged to be an abducted woman and not belonging to his caste in his house. The accused persons, who were his neighbours, resented this unconventional behaviour on the part of Panchia and it was on the evening of 23rd Mirch, 1969 at 8 P.M. Ramjilal, Radhey, Khilli, Hariram, Kriodi, Sitaram, Dharmi, Yadram, Hariram II and Bhulli, went inside the boase of Panchia armed with lathies to give expression to their protest and in that process beat Panehia and when Moharsingh Gyasi intervened, he was also beaten by these persons. A first information report was lodged on March 24, 1969 at 6.15 P.M. They were tried for offences Under Sections 147, 325, 325/149, 447, 323, and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code by the Munsiff Magistrate, Bayana who by his judgment dated 16 -9 70 acquited Kriodi, Hariram II and Bhulli. The matter was taken up in appeal and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bharatpur gave benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioners No. 3 to 6 but sentenced the petitioners No. 1 and 2 to different terms of imprisonment as indicated earlier.

(3.) MR . N.M. Singhvi, learned Counsel for the State, submits that having regard to the fact that the entire transaction commenced on account of a social resentment and the accused -petitioners No. 1 and 2 not being previous offenders and the incident took place some 5 years back they could also be given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act not withstanding the fact that the conviction is Under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code.