KANA RAM & OTHERS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal against the judgment dated March 19, 1979 of the learned Sessions Judge Jhunjhunu, the only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the ground that some of the accused had been bounden down earlier under Sec 116 and 117 Cr. P.C. cannot be said to be special reason within the meaning of Sec. 361 Cr. P.C. for refusing the benefit to the appellants of Sec. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short, the Act).

(2.) The learned Sessions Judge Jhunjhunu under his aforesaid judgment convicted the accused-appellant Harlal and Karam under Sec. 147 Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. He also convicted each of the aforesaid accused-appellant under Sec. 325 Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 50.00 or in default of payment of fine to further suffer one months rigorous imprisonment. Both the accused-appellants were also convicted under Sec. 323, 324 read with Sec 149 Penal Code and each of them has been sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. So far as accused appellant Harnand is concerned he was also convicted under Sec. 147, 323, 324, 325 read with Sec. 149 IPC, Under the first count he was sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment under the second to six months rigorous imprisonment and under the third count he was sentenced to 9 months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 50.00 or in default of payment of fine to further suffer one months rigorous imprisonment.

(3.) It is not necessary to give facts in detail as they are contained in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. The only ground advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is that in a case of present nature the appellant should have been given the benefit of the provisions of Sec. 4 of the Act, or else the court must have recorded special reasons in its judgment for refusing such benefit to the accused appellants. According to him the mere fact that the accused appellant had been bounden down under Sec. 116 or Sec. 117 Cr P.C. cannot be said to be any special reason within the meaning of Sec. 361 Crimial P.C. for declining him the benefit of Sec 4 of the Act