A.P.CHOWDHRI, J. - (1.) HARBANS Singh, aged 42, was convicted under Sections 324/323 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the Code') for causing five simple injuries to Amar Singh by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jagraon. He was sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- under section 324 of the Code and to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/- under section 323 of the Code. In default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to further two months' and one month's rigorous imprisonment respectively for the said offences. His appeal with regard to conviction was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. The sentence of imprisonment under section 324 of the Code was reduced from six months to four months. The fine of Rs. 500/- was directed to be paid to Amar Singh injured. The sentence of imprisonment under section 323 of the Code was left un-interfered with. The fine of Rs. 300/- was set aside. Both the Courts considered but declined to give the benefit of probation to the petitioner primarily on the ground that the injured was a retired military personnel of old age and he must have left hurt and humiliated especially as the incident took place in front of his two grand daughters. The trial Court also observed that the offence especially under section 324 of the Code was a serious one and the punishment provided was upto three years' imprisonment.
(2.) THE present revision was admitted with regard to sentence only. It has been strenuously argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has undergone ten days and in the facts and circumstances of the case this should be considered sufficient to meet the ends of justice and the sentence should be reduced to be that already undergone. In the alternative, he submits that the petitioner deserved to be released on probation by the Courts below. In this connection, the learned counsel pointed out that the petitioner is also an ex-army personnel with two school going children. He took me through the details of the five injuries as also the evidence of the doctor who had prepared the medico-legal report of the injured. He argued that injury No. 1 stated to have been received on the forehead by the throwing of a brick-bat from the roof of the house of the accused could not have been only skin deep if it had been received in the way suggested by the prosecution. The injury said to have been received with small Kirpan (Gatra) was on non-vital part of the body and possibility of the same having been self-inflicted or self-suffered could not be denied by the medical expert examined. After hearing the learned counsel, I am of the opinion that the petitioner deserves to be released on probation. It has time and again been pointed out by this Court as well as the apex Court that in all cases of first offender the Court ought to consider the grant of the benefit of probation and wherever benefit was not given the Court was required to state its reasons. Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down that when a person not under 21 years of age is convicted of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less and is not a previous convict, the Court may release him on probation. The relevant considerations are also indicated in the section itself. These are age character or antecedents of the offender and the circumstances in which the offence was committed and whether the Court considers that it is expedient that the offender should be released on probation of good conduct. The Legislative policy that the benefit of probation should be liberally given is made abundantly clear by provisions Section 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which lays down that where an offender could have been dealt with under section 360 of the Code and has not been so dealt with, the Court shall record in its judgment the special reasons for not having done so. The normal rule, therefore, is that having regard to the relevant considerations, the Court should ordinarily release the offender on probation and where the Court decides against probation, it is required to state its special reasons for doing so. The expression special reasons came up for consideration in Vishnu Dutt v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 964 and it was construed to mean reasons such as to compel the Court to hold that it was impossible to reform and rehabilitate the offender. Both the learned trial Court as well as appellate Court failed to advance cogent reasons which could be considered special reason's for denying the benefit of
(3.) PROBATION . Accordingly, the revision is allowed to the extent that the punishment of imprisonment and fine imposed by the Court below is set aside. Instead, it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on probation to appear and receive sentence during the course of one year and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour The fine already deposited by the petitioner shall be converted into compensation and the same shall be paid to Amar Singh injured. Order accordingly.;