Sunil Kumar Garg, J. - (1.) This appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order dated 28.5.1991 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Taranagar, District Churu by which he acquitted the accused respondents Madannath, Narainnath and Vednath for the offence under section 325/34, 326/34, 324/34, 323/34 and 341 IPC and convicted the accused respondent no.1 Chauthnath for the offence under section 324 and 323 IPC, but instead of sentencing him for the said offences, he gave benefit of probation under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
(2.) It arises in the following circumstances : On 24.10.1987, PW3 Amarnath gave a Parchabayan Ex. P/5 before the Police Station Taranagar District Churu stating inter-alia that on that day at about 11.00 AM, he was in his field and at that time, near about 15 goats belonging to Kesharnath, Kubhnath and Sarayan, entered in his field and when he was dragging out these goats, accused respondents came there and at that time, accused respondent no.1 Chauthnath was having Barchhi, accused respondent no.4 was armed with kulhari and rest accused were armed with lathies. The accused respondent no.1 Chauthnath gave Barchhi blow on the head of PW3 Amarnath and rest accused also beat him with lathies. Near the incident, PW1 Dalai was ploughing the field of Brij lal and PW2 Om also came there and saved him from further beating and rescued from the clutches of the accused respondents. PW2 Om told the whole incident to his father PW4 Kalunath. Thereafter, he was taken to the hospital and he was admitted in the hospital of Taranagar. On this Parchabayan Ex.P/5, the police registered the case and started investigation. During investigation, PW3 Amarnath was got medically examined by PW5 Dr. Sahdev Singh and his injury report is Ex.P/3, which shows that he received as many as 8 injuries and his X-ray report is Ex.P/8, which shows that fractures of the right frontal and parietal bones and right femur bone shaft in its lower ⅓rd region were detected. Thus, injuries no.1 and 7 of PW3 Amarnath were assessed by the doctor as grievous one. After usual investigation, the police submitted challan in the Court against the accused respondents. On 5.1.1989, the learned Magistrate framed charges against the accused respondents in the following manner: JUDGEMENT_121_LAWS(RAJ)3_2001_1.html The charges were read over and explained to the accused respondents, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case, examined as many as seven witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter, the statements of the accused respondents under section 313 Cr.PC. were recorded. No evidence in defence was produced by the accused respondents. After conclusion of trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Taranagar, District Churu vide his judgment and order dated 28th May, 1991 acquitted the accused respondents Madannath, Narainnath and Vednath of the charges for the offence under sections 325/34, 326/34, 324/34, 323/34 and 341 IPC and convicted the accused respondent no.1 Chauthnath for the offence under sections 324 and 323 IPC, but instead of sentencing him for the said offences he granted benefit of probation under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 28th May, 1991 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Taranagar, District Churu, this appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan.
(3.) In this appeal, the following submissions have been made by the learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant: 1. That the learned Magistrate has not given any reason while acquitting the accused respondents Madannath, Narainnath and Vednath of the charges framed against them. 2. That the learned Magistrate has wrongly convicted the accused respondent No.1 Chauthnath for the offence under section 324 IPC and he should have been convicted for the offence under section 326 IPC, as injuries no. 1 and 7 of PW 3 Amarnath were found grievous in nature and injury no. 1 was caused by sharp edged weapon. Thus, the findings of the learned Magistrate are perverse and contrary to the facts and liable to be set aside.;