VIJAY KUMAR VYAS,J. - (1.) Initially in the matter of FIR No.289/2001 police submitted a charge-sheet against three accused - Jagdish, Rakesh and Bhojraj. Charge-sheet was also presented against one accused Rasbihari under Section 299 Cr.P.C. after getting him declared absconder. First three accused were tried by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Baran. Vide judgment dated 26.10.2002, all the three accused were acquitted from the charges under section 326/34 and 307/34 IPC. However, they were convicted for offence under section 324/34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.3,000/- with default stipulation. When absconding accused Rasbihari was arrested, a separate complete charge-sheet against him was submitted. He was separately tried by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Baran and vide judgment dated 19.4.2003, he was also acquitted from charge under section 326/34 and 307/34 IPC and was convicted for offence under section 324/34 IPC. However, he was given benefit of probation under Probation of Offenders Act. On submission of bail bonds and surety bonds as per stipulation. He was further ordered under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act to deposit Rs.3,000/-. Complainant Ratan Lal has preferred two separate revisions against both these judgments. He has assailed the judgment dated 19.4.2003 in Revision Petition No.862/2003 whereby Rasbihari was given benefit of probation instead of passing sentence for the offence proved against him. By S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.199/2003, complainant Ratan Lal has assailed the judgment dated 26.10.2002 passed by learned trial court whereby learned trial court has acquitted respondents - Jagdish, Rakesh and Bhojraj from charge for the offence punishable under section 307/34 and 326/34 IPC. Accused Jagdish, Bhojraj and Rakesh have preferred S.B. Criminal Appeal No.1501/2002 assailing the judgment dated 26.10.2002 whereby they had been denied the benefit of the probation for offence proved against them. Since all these matters have arisen out of same FIR, they are being heard jointly and decided by this common judgment.
(2.) In brief, facts of the case are that complainant Ratan Lal (PW-3 in Sessions Case No.153/2001) and (PW-1 in Sessions Case No. 106/2002) informed ASI, Hansraj Meena, Police Station Sadar Baran, at Government Hospital, Baran on 5.8.2001 at about 5.45 PM that when he was at his agricultural field, accused Jagdish got his cow entered into his field for grazing. He warned him not to do so. But Jagdish started abusing him and slapped. Thereafter, Jagdish went to the village. After some time, accused Jagdish, Rakesh and Rasbihari, armed with country made pistols (Katta) came there. Immediately, Jagdish fired gun shot which injured his chest. Later on, all the three fired gun shots whereupon bullet pallets injured him. He fell down. Jagdish has witnessed the incident. Later on, his brother Prahlad (PW-6 in Sessions Case No.153/2001) and other villagers have brought him here. On the basis of this information, Parcha Bayan (Ex.P-12) was recorded by ASI, Hansaraj (PW-8) and a formal FIR No.289/2001 (Ex.P-15) was registered. After due investigation, charge-sheet was submitted in two phases as stated herein above. Prosecution examined 11 witnesses and 10 witnesses, in Sessions Cases No.153/2001 and 106/2002, respectively. Accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They stated that the evidence adduced by prosecution is wrong. They have been falsely implicated in the matter because a cross case was registered by them against complainant party. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence. After hearing both the parties, learned trial court decided the matter in two phases and passed the separate judgments, as stated herein above.
(3.) Learned counsel for the accused who are appellants in Cr. Appeal No.1501/2002 has submitted that despite of first offence, learned trial court has committed an error in denying the benefit of probation to the accused for offence under section 324/34 IPC. No cogent reasons have been given by learned trial court for such refusal. As per provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, learned trial court was ought to give reasons for denying the benefit of probation.;