SANDEEP MEHTA,J. - (1.) The instant appeal preferred by the State of Rajasthan under Section 377 Cr.P.C., 1973 is directed against the judgment dated 1.12.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 4, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 60/12 (Old No. 22/2011). The trial Court, while convicting the respondent for the offences under Sections 323, 325 and 341 IPC extended benefit of probation to him by resorting to section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The State has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement in the sentences awarded to the respondent Hari Ram.
(2.) After having appreciated the arguments advanced by the learned public prosecutor and after going through the impugned judgment, I am ex-facie of the opinion that the appeal by itself is not maintainable and is also devoid of merit.
(3.) The complainant Roopa Ram lodged a report against the respondent Hari Ram and one Sheopat Ram on 8.11.2010 alleging inter alia that the accused assaulted him by blunt weapons and caused him head injury. It was also alleged in the report that Hari Ram had broken the spinal cord of his cow on 29.10.2010. On the basis of this report, FIR No. 206/2010 was registered at P.S. Bajju and investigation commenced. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the offences under Sections 307, 323, 341, 429 and 325 IPC and Section 3/8 of the Bovine Animals Act, 1994. The trial Court framed charges against the accused for these very offences. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses in support of its case. The accused, upon being examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 denied the prosecution story but did not choose to lead any evidence in defence. The medical Officer Dr. Prakash Chandra PW8 alleged that the injured complainant was having 4 injuries on his body of which 2 were grievous. There was a fracture on the left temporal bone of the injured. However, the said fracture was not opined to be life threatening. Accordingly, after appreciating and evaluating the evidence available on record, the trial Court acquitted the accused from the offences under Sections 307 and 429 IPC and Section 3/8 of the Bovine Animals Act and held him guilty for the offences under Sections 323, 325 and 341 IPC. Thereafter, the accused was extended benefit of probation. It is relevant to mention here that the State has not challenged the acquittal of the respondent accused from the charge under Section 307 IPC. The offence under Section 325 IPC carries a maximum sentence of 7 years. Thus, the mandatory provision of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act was rightly invoked because the prosecution did not lead any evidence to show that the accused was having criminal antecedents. Any order whereby benefit of probation is extended to the accused under the Probation of Offenders Act, can only be challenged by filing an appeal under Section 11 of the Act. The State has approached this Court by this appeal under Section 377 Cr.P.C., 1973 The said provision empowers this Court to enhance the sentences awarded to the accused by the trial Court if so required. Any order whereby benefit of probation has been granted to the accused cannot be altered/modified so as to sentence to the accused to imprisonment in an appeal filed under Section 377 Cr.P.C., 1973;