Ajay vs State of Rajasthan

M.C. Sharma, J.—This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 11-6-2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Baran in Sessions Case No. 227/2011, whereby the accused-appellant has been acquitted for the offences under Ss. 307 and 326, I.P.C., but he has been convicted for the offences under Ss. 341 and 324, I.P.C. and instead of sentencing him, he has been given the benefit of Ss. 4 and 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act and he has been directed to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 2000/- as compensation, to be given to the victim. Brief facts of the case are as under:

On 25-7-2009 complainant Mukesh lodged a report before Police Station, Kotwali, Baran, which was registered as F.I.R. No. 498/2009 for the offences under Ss. 341, 323/34, I.P.C. against the appellant. Thereafter the investigation was started and after completion of investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the appellant for the offences under Ss. 307, 341, 326/34, I.P.C. Thereafter the case was committed to the Sessions Judge, Baran, who transferred the case to Addl. Sessions Judge, Baran for trial. The trial Court framed charges against the appellant for the offences under Ss. 307, 341 and 326, I.P.C. The appellant denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter the prosecution submitted the witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter the statement of the appellant were recorded under S. 313, Cr.P.C. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court passed the impugned judgment and order. The operative part of the impugned judgment and order is reproduced as under:

Against the said judgment and order of conviction dated 11-6-2014 passed by the trial Court, this appeal has been preferred.

Without going into the merits of the case, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant is a young person and he is a masonry worker. He is the only person in his family, who earns the livelihood. The age of the accused-appellant was 21 years at the time of occurrence. No other case is pending against the appellant except this one. He has been selected for the post of Sweeper and the select list has been published by Nagar Parishad, Baran on 7-8-2014 and the name of the appellant is appearing at Sr. No. 149 in the said list. He is quite innocent person. The accused-appellant has been acquitted for the offences under Ss. 307 and 326, I.P.C., but convicted for the offences under Ss. 341 and 324, I.P.C. and benefit of Ss. 4 and 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act has been given to him. He has requested to this Court that benefit of S. 12 of Probation of Offenders Act should also be extended in favour of the accused-appellant so that the impugned judgment and order will not affect his future in any way.

Learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case that this is the first offence of the accused-appellant; he is a masonry worker; he is the only person in his family, who earns the livelihood; he is not previously convicted person; he is a young person and he has been selected for the post of Sweeper by Nagar Parishad, Baran, in my view, it is a fit case to grant the benefit of S. 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act also to the accused-appellant.

Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. The benefit of S. 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act is also extended to the accused-appellant in addition to the benefit of Ss. 4 and 5 of Probation of Offenders Act, which has already been given to the appellant by the Court below, so that the impugned judgment and order shall not come in the way of the appellant in getting the Government service or any other service in future.

Rest of the terms under the impugned judgment and order shall remain unchanged.

The impugned judgment stands modified, as indicated hereinabove. Stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.