Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) The appellants herein have approached this Court by way of the instant appeal assailing the judgment dated 30.3.1995 passed by learned Addl. Session Judge, Phalodi in Session Case No. 11/1994 whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, whilst acquitting the appellants herein from the charges under Sections 148 and 307 I.P.C., convicted them for the offences under Sections 323 and 147 I.P.C. and sentenced them as below:- JUDGEMENT_84_LAWS(RAJ)6_2016_1.html All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellant at the outset does not challenge the conviction of the appellants as recorded by the Trial Court but prays that as the offences under Sections 323 and 147 I.P.C. carry a maximum punishment of one year only, looking to the mandatory provisions of Sections 360 and 361 Cr.P.C. as well as the Probation of Offenders Act, the learned Trial Court erred in not extending the benefit of probation to the appellants herein. He, therefore, prays that while accepting the appeal in part the appellants may be directed to be released on probation.
(3.) Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellants' Counsel. He submits that the learned Trial Court acted with undue benevolence while acquitting the appellants from the charge under Section 307 I.P.C. He urged that the appellants herein assaulted and inflicted no less than 20 injuries to the injured Pawan Kumar all over his body. He thus submits that there is no justification for extending the benefit of probation to the appellants.;