BALRAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is preferred against the judgment dt. 29 -8 -89 passed by the Sessions Judge, Alwar, convicting the petitioner Balram Under Sections 325, 324/34 and 323 IPC and petitioner Manohar Lal Under Section 325/34, 324 and 323 IPC. The petitioners have been sentenced on each count to imprisonment and the fine.

(2.) THIS incident had taken place on 3rd April, 1979. The Police prosecuted the petitioners in the Court of Addl. Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, No.1, Alwar who found them guilty Under Section 325, 324/34, 324, 325/34 and 323 IPC. An appeal was preferred by the petitioners and the learned Sessions Judge vide his judgment dt. 29 -8 -89 dismissed the appeal and sentenced Balram Under Section 325 IPC to 2 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/ -, in default of payment of fine to undergo six month's R.I. Under Section 324/34 IPC to 1 -1/2 year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/ -, in default of payment of fine to undergo six months' RI and Under Section 323 IPC one year's S.I. Manohar Lal was also sentenced Under Section 325/34 IPC to two years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/,in default of payment of fine, to undergo six months' R.I. Under Section 324 IPC sentenced to 1 -1/2 year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/ -, in default of payment of fine to undergo six month's R.I. and Under Section 323 IPC sentenced to one year's SI. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(3.) CONSIDERED the arguments of both the learned Counsel and also perused the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. I am of this view that the learned Magistrate did not give reasons for not granting benefit of Section 360 Cr.PC. Merely writing in one sentence that the prayer for releasing on probation is rejected, is not reasonable ground. The learned Magistrate should have given reasons for not granting benefit of releasing on probation as envisaged under Section 361, Cr.PC. In the case of Leela and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan 1988 (1) WLN 378 this Court had directed the Registry to send the copy of the judgment to all the subordinate courts drawing their attention to the provisions of Section 361, Cr PC. It seems that the learned trial Magistrate as well as the appellate court have not seen the judgment of Leela (supra) and the provisions of Section 361, Cr.PC. The wordings are very clear in Section 361, Cr.PC that while rejecting the prayer of releasing on probation the trial court has to give specific reasons in writing in the judgment and both the lower courts have failed to appreciate the provisions of this section. Apart from this fact this incident had taken place in the year 1979 and the cause of this dispute is the entrance of she -goat in the field. On account of this aspect injuries were inflicted to Mst. Santo and Dhapa. There is only one fracture by blunt weapon to Mst. Santo and looking to the injury of both the ladies and the fact that the petitioners are facing trial for the last 10 years, the petitioners have already undergone mental agony and the fact that there is no previous incident about their character and conduct which debar them the benefit of Section 360, Cr.PC. I am of this view that the petitioners be given the benefit of releasing them on probation. No doubt, they have inflicted injuries to the ladies and in these special circumstances some compensation should be awarded to the ladies.