JUGTA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Jugta Ram has been convicted under Sec. 325, 324 and 323 Penal Code vide judgment dated 4.3.1983 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Churu in Sessions Case No. 27/82. The appellant was sentenced to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 100.00 fine or in default to undergo 2 months rigorous imprisonment, 1 year rigorous imprisonment and six months rigorous imprisonment for the above offences respectively. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) It is not necessary to narrate the facts of the case because the learned counsel for the appellant has not advanced any argument on the finding of conviction by the Trial Court under the impugned judgment. He has only confined his arguments on the point of sentence. I have also perused the impugned judgment as well as the evidence on recorded and I am of the opinion that the finding of conviction does not require to be interfered with by this Court. The learned Trial Court has appraised the oral and documentary evidence on record and found the witnesses reliable and recorded the conviction as stated above, which does not suffer from any infirmity.

(3.) On the question of sentence the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the occurrence took place on 8.2.1982. The impugned judgment was passed on 4.3.1983. The appellant has suffered lot of mental agony as well as financial loss during the last 17 years. There is no report about any previous conviction against the appellant. Therefore, it is argued that the appellant may be given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. It is also submitted that the appellant has remained in Jail for about twenty days. The learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the contention to the grant of benefit of probation. It is submitted by him that the injured RW. 2 Mahendra Singh has suffered grievous injury by blunt weapon as well as simply Injury by sharp edged weapon and adequate punishment should be given to the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant has again submitted that in the above facts and circumstances, the appellant is prepared to pay compensation to the injured person and the sentence may be reduced to already undergone.