Ram Kishun Sah, Bhubneshwar Sah and Deo Narayan Sah vs The State of Bihar and Hari Lal Sah

Gopal Prasad, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State.

The appellants have been convicted u/s 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months.

The prosecution case, as alleged, is that while the complainant was returning after purchase of fertilizer from the money he got as pension to the tune of Rs.6,000/- he was intercepted and snatched the money and assaulted. However, a case was lodged under Sections 379 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and during the trial the charge was framed but the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the appellants of the charge under Sections 379 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the trial court convicted the appellants for the offence u/s 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the appellants, however, submits that the benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C. has not been provided though the appellants have been acquitted under Sections 379 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted for the offence u/s 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

However, having regard to the facts and circumstances that the occurrence is of the year 1990 as the appellants have not been acquitted for the offence under 379 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and have only been convicted u/s 323 of the Indian Penal Code. hence, he has suffered due to the protracted litigation and hence under the facts and circumstances, the benefit of Section 360 Cr. P. C and Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act be provided and the appellants are acquitted on due admonition. Hence, the appeal is dismissed with modification in sentence.