GOPAL ALIAS SHRI GOPAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has challenged the judgment dated 17. 7. 1985 whereby the learned trial Court has convicted him for offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code (for short, "ipc"), while acquitting him of offences under Sections 147, 148, 380 and 307 of IPC. However, instead of granting the benefit of probation, the learned trial Court has sentenced him to ten months' rigorous imprisonment and has imposed a fine of Rs. 200/- and has directed that he shall undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine.

(2.) BRIEFLY, the facts of the case are that Ram Dutt (PW. 1) lodged a report (Ex. P/1) at the Police Station, wherein he claimed that: On 15. 3. 1982, in the morning, around 10' O Clock, when he went to the temple of Hanumanji, which is near his shop, Shri Gopal (the appellant), Jagdish, Nihal Singh, Ram Bharosi, Om Prakash, Data Ram and Ram Kishan and other two unidentified persons came near him. At that time, Ram Kumar Brahmin was standing near the complainant, Ram Dutt. While Jagdish had a revolver, one of the two unidentified persons had a gun. According to the complainant party, the group of people came near the complainant and attacked the complainant. When Shri Gopal fired from his gun, Ram Kumar Brahmin pushed the complainant inside the gallery of his house. However, even then the complainant sustained pallets in his fingers and in his palm. Ram Kumar Brahmin closed the shutter of the gallery. Thereafter, the accused persons entered into the shop of the complainant and took away Rs. 500/- and a HMT watch. When the villagers rushed to the rescue, the accused persons fired from their gun in the air and went away towards the village Vasai Nabab. Ram Dutt was taken for medical treatment to the village Sapao. However, as the doctor was not available there, no medical report or injury report could be prepared. Thereafter, the complainant went to the police station to lodge a report.

(3.) LIKEWISE, Mr. Arun Sharma, the learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the benefit of probation should not be granted to the appellant.