ANGAD PAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25.7.1992 passed by Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area cum Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Karauli in Sessions Case No. 41/1991, whereby he acquitted the accused Prahlad Pal, but convicted the appellant Angad Pal for the offence under Section 326 IPC and sentenced him to undergo 2 years' RI with fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 months' SI. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.8.1988, Dashrath Pal gave a parcha bayan. On the basis of aforesaid parcha bayan, FIR No. 109/1988 was registered for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 307 IPC and investigation was commenced. After completion of investigation, the police filed the challan. The trial court framed charges against the accused persons, who denied from the same and claimed trial. The prosecution produced witnesses and exhibited some documents. Thereafter the statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused Angad Pal appeared as a witness and got himself examined as DW-1 After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court vide his judgment dated 25.7.1992 acquitted the accused Prahlad Pal for the alleged offences but convicted and sentenced the accused appellant Angad Pal, as indicated above.

(2.) Against the aforesaid judgment, this appeal was preferred.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the Court below, but he is only requesting to this Court that since there was a cross-case in between the parties and accused appellant Angad Pal has also received 7 injuries; there were total 33 injuries on the persons from the side of Angad Pal and co-accused Prahlad Pal has been acquitted; the incident is said to have taken place on 10.8.1988 i.e. 27 years ago; the age of the accused appellant Angad Pal is 64 years; he is not the habitual offender; he is facing the trial since the last about 27 years; it is the first offence of his life; he belongs to a respectable family having children of marriageable age, he should be released on probation under the Probation of Offenders' Act. If the appellant is not released on probation, then the impugned judgment and order will adversely affect his life.