P.D. Kudal, J.
1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions judge, Dausa dated 28th January, 1978.
2. The appellant was tried for an offence under Section 307/34, IPC by the learned trial Court, But he was acquitted of the offence under Section 307/34, IPC but convicted under Section 324, IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months.
3. The learned Counsel for the accused-apellant has contended that looking to the nature and to the fact that the accused was below 21 years of age on the date occurrence, the learned lower Cort has erred in law in not extending the benefit of the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. and Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, It was also contended that the learned lower the age 21 years on the date when the judgment was pronounced.
4. Mr. Gupta appearing on behalf of the State has contended that from the evidence on record the prosecution has succeeded in bringing the guilt home to the accused. He has, however, not opposed the request of the accused-petitioner being enlarged on probation.
5. The respective contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties have been considered and the record of the case carefully perused.
6. The medical report by PW/4 Dr. Bal Kishan Joshi shows that the injured PW/1 Mahesh Kumar received the following injuries:
1. Incised wound margins clear cut and well defined 2/3' 3/4' lateral from left nipple by cutting weapon.
2. Abrasion about 2' liner, between thumb and under thigh simple.
3. Abrasion about 1/4' linear on right index finger.
7. The injuries are not of such a nature which could endanger the life of the injured. The accused is not a previous convict, and was below the age of 21 years on the date of occurrence. The incident took place on 25th February, after such a long time which would convert him in a hardened criminal. The Probation of Offenders Act is a social legislation which is meant to reform juvenile offenders so as to prevent them from becoming hardened criminals by providing an educative and reformative treatment to them by the Government. With a view to protect the younger generation from becoming professional criminal and, therefore, a menace to the society, a new trend in penology has taken place resulting in the enactment of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
8. The learned lower Court was definitely wrong when it held that the accused was not below 21 years of age when the judgment was pronounced. The relevant date on which the age of the accused has to be seen is the date when the occurrence took place. Reference may be made to Barshen Kumar v. Secretary, Municipal Corporation, Jobalpur and (1) 1973 Cr.L.J. 384 and Musakhan v. State of Maharashtra (2) 1976 Cr.L.J. 1987.
9. Taking an overall view of the entire set of circumstances it does not appear unreasonable to extend the benefits of the provisions of Section 384, Cr.P.C. read with Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the accused-petitioner. The conviction of the accused-appellant is, therefore, sustained. The accused appellant shall, however, be not called upon to undergo the sentence awarded to him provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 2,000/- with a surety of the like amount to be of good behaviour & to maintain place for a period of two years to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Dausa, and to appear before him whenever called upon to do so, and to undergo the sentence awarded to him. The personal bond and surety should be furnished before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge within a period of 30 days failing which the benefits of the provisions of Section 360, Cr.P.C. read with Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act shall be deemed to have been withdrawn and the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused-appellant shall stand confirmed and he shall surrender before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa to undergo the sentence awarded to him.