LEELA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the accused-appellant and the learned. Public Prosecutor and have gone through the judgment of the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court in its judgment dated December 15, 1987 has convicted accused-appellant Sri Chand under Section 324, IPC and accused appellants Leela Ram and Jaidayal under Sections 325 and 323 IPC. The learned Court while hearing the arguments on the quantum of sentence has declined to deal with the case of the accused-appellants under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958(for short Tthe ActT) on the only ground that injured Munshi Singh received three injuries, which were grievous.

(2.) The submission of learned counsel for the accused-appellants is that the only ground that the injuries are grievous, the Court could not have declined to give the benefits of provisions of Sec. 4 of the Act to the appellants more so when the case was such which could have been dealt with under the provisions of the Act and there is mandate in the legislature contained in Section 361 Cr. P.C. that the case of such accused persons should have been dealt with under Sec. 4 of the Act unless for special reasons to be recorded, the Court considered not in the interest of justice to deal with the case of the accused-appellants, as stated above. The learned counsel bas not challenged the conviction on merits and rightly in view of the evidence on secord duly supported by medicea evidence.

(3.) Time and again, the courts have said that the provisions of Section 361. Cr. P.C. are mandatory and. if the case of the accused is such which could have been dealt with under the provisions of Sec. 360, Cr. P.C. which is not applicable in this part by virtue of Sec. 19 of the Act or under the provisions of the Act and is not so dealt with the Court shall record special reasons for not dealing with the case of the accused under Sec. 4 of the Act, It has also been held that so far as special reasons within the meaning of Section 361 Cr. P.C. are concerned, they not only relate to the circumstances in which the offence was committed but also relate to the character, antecedent and age of the accused. Recently, the courts have gone to this extent that in case the age of the accused is not mentioned in the warrant sent to him to jail then the warrant may have to be set aside. Be that as it may, the recent trend is formative and rehabilitative and unless the Court can come to the conclusion that the case of an accused is such which though could have been dealt with under the provisions of the Act but looking to the antecedents, character and circumstances of the case it shall not be so dealt with it must record special reason for not doing so. It is well known that during the trial of the case generally the character and antecedents of the offender are not known and there is no material for the Court to say anything in that respect. Therefore, in such of the cases, which could be dealt with under the provisions of the Act, the Court should call for the report of the police officer, which, report is, bound to contaill not only the material in respect of the age of the offender and his character and the circumstances in which the offence was committed, but also his family circumstances, his economic condition etc. and unless the report of the police officer is adverse and unless the circumstances of the case in which the offence was committed are such which shock the conscience of the Court, the Court in view of the mandate legislature contained in Section 361 Cr. P.C. will have and can have no option but to deal with the case of the accused persons under the provision of Section 4 of the Act or any other similar provision.