NARAYAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 01.02.1988 passed by Sessions Judge, Dungarpur in sessions case No. 39/1987 whereby the learned Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused namely Narayan, Kanti @ Kaliya, Bhagu, Ratna and Nana for offence under Sections 148 and 307/149 read with Section 324/149 I.P.C. and granted benefits of probation to accused Kanti @ Kalia while recording the finding of guilt against him and convicting him for offence under Section 323 I.P.C. and the present appellant Narayan was convicted for committing offence under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to one and half year RI along with the fine of Rs. 500/-. Further it was ordered that if the amount of fine of Rs. 500/- is deposited by accused Narayan, then, injured Banshilal and Nathulal may be paid Rs. 150/- each and Mohanlal may be paid Rs. 200/- as compensation.

(2.) It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that as per the prosecution story, on 20.04.1987 at 8.00 a.m. one Ramdeo filed an oral report at Police Station Thambol that his son Gauttamlal and son-in-law laxmanlal on the preceding night boarded the truck at Thambola. The truck reached at Karwada at 8.30 p.m. on 19.4.1987. There was a 'barat' for village Sasarpur wanted to board the truck. Some of the 'Baraties' asked Gauttamlal and Laxmanlal to get down from the truck. They refused to accept their request. Five accused persons surrounded and attacked all of them. Accused Narayan was armed with knife, Kanti @ Kalia with sword and other accused-persons were armed with Lathis. Accused Kanti inflicted sword injury on left leg of Gopal. Bhaggu, Ratna and Nana caused injuries on Laxmanlal. On hearing their cries, Nathulal, Mohanlal and Banshilal arrived there and intervened. Accused Narayan caused knife injuries to the said persons. As per the allegation, other accused persons caught hold of them. After investigation, the police filed challan against accused Narayan for offence under Sections 148, 307, 324 and 323/149 I.P.C. and all other accused persons were charged for offence under Sections 148, 307/149, 324, 149 and 323/149 I.P.C. After trial, accused Kanti was held guilty and convicted for offence under Section 323 I.P.C. and accused-appellant-Narayan was held guilty and convicted for offence under Section 324 I.P.C. All other accused persons were acquitted from the charges levelled against them. Accused Kanti was granted the benefits of Probation of Offenders Act and the present appellant was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant is also entitled to be given the benefits of Probation of Offenders Act under Section 360 Cr.P.C. Learned trial Judge has committed an error in not extending the benefits of probation to the appellant without recording any reasons. Therefore, it is prayed that the appellant may be given the benefits of probation under Section 360 Cr.P.C. The appellant is not a previous convict and he was 30 years of age at the time the occurrence took place. The occurrence took place suddenly on the spur of moment and in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned trial Court ought to have extended the benefits of probation under Section 360 Cr.P.C. because all other accused persons were acquitted except the present appellant and accused Kanti, who was also given the benefits of Probation of Offenders Act though he was held guilty for committing offence under Section 323 I.P.C.