LILA RAM Vs. NANGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a criminal case under Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (here in after called as the Act) against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Alwar dated July 28, 1977 giving the benefit of probation to the respondent No. 1.

(2.) IT will suffice to state for the purposes of this appeal that father of the appellant and 3 others were joint owners of a well, which was fitted with electric pump, from which water for the purposes of irrigation in the fields of the partners was given from the well by turn. On March 1, 1977 it was turn of the father of appellant and the appellant at about 6 a.m. went there and started pump for irrigation of his land. Thereupon, accused respondent Nangi and some other persons started abusing the appellant and in the altercation, it was alleged that Hari Kishan grapped the appellant from behind and called Nangi accused, who took the axe lying near and inflicted a blow on the head on right side above the ear and inflicted another blow from the back side of the axe on the back of the head of the appellant. On raising alarm by the appellant, persons from nearby field came and intervened. In all 3 persons were challenged under Sections 307, 326 and 323/34 IPC, out of which the trial court acquitted other two accused persons but convicted the respondent No. 1 under Sections 325 and 323 IPC. However, while awarding punishment, the trial court by a separate order dated July 28, 1977 held that since the respondent No. 1 was below 21 years of age and for various other reasons he be released on probation for a period of one year under Section 6 of the Act.

(3.) SHRI R.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 on the other hand contends that it is not necessary that the trial court should have called for the report of the Probation Officer as the respondent No. 1 was of 16 years age at the relevant time and thus below 21 years of age. It is, therefore, submitted by the learned counsel that the trial court righly did not call for any report from the Probation Officer considering various circumstances and the age of respondent No. 1, thought fit to give the benefit of the provisions of Section 6 of the Act to him.