BANNE SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 29.7.1991 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Bas District Alwar in Sessions Case No. 57/1990, whereby he convicted the accused appellant Banne Singh for the offence under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him to undergo 1 years' RI with a fine of Rs. 200/- ; while other two accused persons Mangal Ram and Ramesh have been convicted for the offence under Sections 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo 6 months' RI with a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year's RI.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 3.8.1990, an FIR was lodged by Tek Chand Jat at Police Station, Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar against accused appellants and two other persons Natthu and Nirana. Thereafter the investigation was commenced and after investigation, the police filed a charge sheet before the Magistrate concerned against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 323, 307/34 IPC, but since no case was found to have been made out against accused Natthu and Nirana, as such no charge sheet was filed against them. The Magistrate concerned committed the case to the Court of Sessions, who transferred the case to the Addl. Sessions, who transferred the case to the Addl. Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Bas for trial. 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 CrPC. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court vide judgment and order dated 29.7.1991 convicted and sentenced the accused appellants, as indicated above. Against the aforesaid judgment, this appeal has been preferred.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants 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 the incident is said to have taken place on 3.8.1990 i.e. about 25 years ago from today; the appellants are facing the trial since the last 25 years; at the time of incident the appellants were young persons and now they are old aged person; they have married and having the children of marriageable age; they are not the habitual offenders; it is the first offence of their life; and they are not previously convicted persons, the alleged offences are bailable, hence they should be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders' Act and benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders' Act should also be given to them, so that the impugned judgment will not affect their future in any way.