- (1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 31.07.1987 passed by Sri S. B. Verma the then I -Additional Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur in S. T. No. 87 of 1983, (State Vs. Ram Briksh and others, u/s 307, 307/34 IPC), whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under: JUDGEMENT_501_LAWS(ALL)8_2014.htm
(2.) APPELLANTS no. 1 and 2 have died during the pendency of the appeal, therefore, their appeal stood abated vide order dated 27.5.2014.
(3.) ON 5.8.2014 when the appeal was taken up for hearing, following order was passed after hearing submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants: "Sri Pradeep Kumar -VI, learned counsel for the appellants submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and would only challenge the sentence awarded to appellant no. 3 -Mangroo. His submission is that appellants no. 1 and 2 have already died and only the appeal of appellant no. 3 -Mangroo and appellant no. 4 -Chhotey Lal is pending. He has further submitted that appellant no. 3 and 4 have been found guilty for the offences punishable u/s 324/34 and 323 IPC. The learned trial Court has awarded sentence of nine months rigorous imprisonment under section 324/34 IPC and six months rigorous imprisonment u/s 323 IPC to accused -appellant no. 3 -Mangroo while appellant no. 4 -Chhotey Lal has been extended benefit of Probation of Offenders' Act." In view of the above, the only issue that requires consideration whether in the facts and circumstances of the case sentence awarded to appellant no.3 -Mangroo is harsh and excessive And whether benefit of Probation of Offenders' Act be also given to him like accused -appellant no.4 -Chhotey Lal Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that since the role of appellants no. 3 and 4 was almost identical and each had been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 324 and 323/34 IPC, therefore, they were liable to have equal treatment in relation to sentence awarded to each of them. He has vehemently argued that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court was not justified in denying benefit of Probation of Offenders' Act to accused -appellant no.3 -Mangroo. In the proved facts the learned trial Court has found that accused Ram Briksh has assaulted injured Radhey Shyam with pharsa while the other accused -appellants caused lathi injuries to him. It was further held that there was no intention to kill the injured, so instead of section 307 or 307/34 IPC, the accused -appellants had been found guilty for the offences punishable u/s 324/34 and 323 IPC. Injured Radhey Shyam has sustained one incised wound on his head apart from three other diffused swelling injuries on back of scapular region, left foot ankle joint, and little finger of left hand dorsal aspect. All these injuries were found simple by the doctor. Accused -appellant no. 3 -Mangroo is bhanja (sister's son) of other three accused -appellants and motive for the crime was with them. Now appellant no. 3 is in judicial custody since 7.7.2014 as his bail was cancelled, due to non -appearance of his counsel in this Court on the date of listing when the appeal was called in the revised list.;