Prahlad and Others vs State of Rajasthan

Bishnoi, J.—This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 18.6.1984 delivered by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, Whereby the appellant Prahlad was found guilty u/s 341 and 324, IPC Gajanand and Bhanwar Lal were found guilty under Sections 341 and 324/34, IPC. For the offence u/s 341 IPC they were awarded the month''s simple imprisonment each, for the offence u/s 324, IPC, a sentence of eight months simple imprisonment was awarded and for the offence u/s 324/34, IPC a sentence of four months imprisonment was awarded. The sentence were awarded to run concurrently.

Pooran (PW 1) on 4.1.84 lodged the FIR Ex.P/1 at Police Station Jhotwara, according to which, he was returning with Bharat (PW2). The three accused persons stopped them and starting inflicted injuries during the course of incident. The accused Prahlad inflicted injuries by knife to Bharat. A case u/s 341 and 307/34, IPC was registered and a challan was subsequently filed Prahlad was charged u/s 341 and 307, IPC and other two were charged u/s 341 and 307/34, IPC. All the three pleaded not guilty. Nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution and Banwari Lal (DW 1) was examined in defence. The accused persons were acquitted u/s 307 and 307/34, IPC and were found guilty and sentenced in the aforesaid manner.

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

The learned counsel for the appellants has in the very out set admitted that so far as the finding of guilt u/s 341, 324 and 324/34, IPC is concerned, it is not possible to differ with the conclusion of the learned trial Court. The learned counsel, however, submits that the sentences of jail awarded by the learned Court are in appropriate and this being the first offence. The accused-appellants ought to have been granted the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of offenders Act.

I find that the testimony of Pooran (PW.1), Bharat (PW.2) and Lal Chand (PW.3) is believable and there is nothing in their cross-examinations on the strength of which the finding of the learned trial Court can be over-turned.

But the incident is more than 17 years old and it is in the fitness of things that in respec of sentence, the request made by the learned counsel for the appellants is accepted.

Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed, the appeal in respect of finding of guilt is dismissed. The judgment awarding jail sentences is set aside and the appeal is accepted to the extent indicated above.

The accused-appellants are ordered to be released u/s 4 of the Probation of Offenders act, on furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 2000/- each and sureties in a like amount to remain peaceful and be of good character for a period of two years and come to receive sentence as and when called upon by the Court during this, period. Two months'' time is granted to the appellants to execute the bail bonds before the trial Court.