NaraIn and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
penal code - section 326/149 and probation of offenders act, 1958--benefit of probation--consistent evidence that none of accused had sharp edged weapon--injuries caused with lathis-held, all accused should he treated at par and benefit of probation should have been extended to then.;there is consistent evidence of the prosecution witnesses that none of the accused petitioner had any sharp edged weapon with them. only some of them had lathis with them.;the court-below was not justified in not extending the benefit of probation of offenders act, to the petitioners, namely narain ram, beera ram and ramlal. all the petitioners have been convicted with the aid of section 149, ipc as such they should be treated at par.;revision partly allowed - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - taking conspicuous picture of the case as well as taking note of the of dilbhag singh v. the slate of punjab reported in air 979 sc 680 as well as the case of vishnu devi v. in case, they fail to pay the fine they will have to undergo sentence awarded to them for nonpayment of fine. 2,000/- within a period of two months from today to keep peace and good behaviour and not to commit any offence for the period of 3 years.d.l. mehta, j.1. this revision petition has been directed against the judgment dated 27th april, 1983, passed by the learned sessions judge, sikar convicted all the accused under sections 447, 147, 325 read with 140 and 323 read with 149 ipc. the learned sessions judge, sentenced accused narain lal peerama lal and ram lal, under section 147 ipc to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, similarly, under section 325 read with 149 ipc, all the above named petitioners have been sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of rs. 200/-. as far as section 447 ipc is concerned, one month's sentence has been awarded to all the above named petitioners and under section 322 read with section 149 ipc 3 months rigorous imprisonment was awarded. rest of the petitioners have been granted advantage of probation of offenders act.2. i have perused the record of the case and i do not find any force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. the conviction of the all the accused petitioners is maintained.3. the petitioners and the complaints are the relatives. the incident took-place in the month of feb. 1981. the incident that has also taken-place may be on account of dispute between the ladies and there was no previous enemity. ex. p4, is the injury report of jamini. the doctor, has opined that injury no. 1, is grevious in nature. he has also found that middle bone coming outside of the right leg. the doctor, his also opined that this injury has been caused by the sharp edged weapon. ex. p 3, is the x-ray report. the radiologist, has reported fratcture of tibia and fibula bone on their mid shaft.4. after considering the evidence, the trial court rejected the version that injury no. 1, was caused by the sharp edged weapon. all the accused petitioners were also acquitted under section 326 read with section 149 ipc. there is consistent evidence of the prosecution witnesses that none of the accused petitioner had any sharp edged weapon with him. only some of them had lathis with them.5. learned public prosecutor, cannot be allowed to raise the point of incised injury, in a revision petition. it was their duty to file appeal against the acquittal under section 326 read with section 149 ipc, if they feel aggrieved at all. taking conspicuous picture of the case as well as taking note of the of dilbhag singh v. the slate of punjab reported in air 979 sc 680 as well as the case of vishnu devi v. the state of west bengal, : 1979crilj841 , i am of the view that the court-below was not justified in not extending benefit of the probation of offenders act, to the 3 petitioners namely narain ram peerma ram and ram lal. all the petitioners have been convicted with the aid of section 149 ipc as such they should be treated at par. the revision is partly accepted and the conviction is maintained. the sentence awarded to all the 3 accused petitioners namely narain ram, peerma ram and ram lal, is hereby set aside to the extent of imprisonment. how ever, they will have to pay the fine which has been imposted on them by the court-below, within a period of two months in the trial-court. in case, they fail to pay the fine they will have to undergo sentence awarded to them for nonpayment of fine. as far as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned, it is set-aside and it is directed that they will enter into a personal bond before the trial court together with one surety in the amount of rs. 2,000/- within a period of two months from today to keep peace and good behaviour and not to commit any offence for the period of 3 years.6. in the result, the revision petition is disposed of accordingly, as far as narain ram, peerma ram and ram lal. the revision petition filed by rest of the accused petitioners namely ramchandra, mst. anchi and mst. ramkori, is dismissed.