In cases of offences against women, the court should be circumspect in extending the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, as the nature of the offence and the character of the offender warrant a different approach to deter crime and rehabilitate the offender.

( 1 ) THE petitioner was charged and convicted for an offence under S. 354 I. P. C. , and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100. 00. In default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. On appeal while confirming the conviction, the lower appellate court reduced the period of sentence to two months and confirmed the fine of Rs. 100. 00. Thus the revision came to be filed.

( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution is that on 11-4-1981 at about 6 p. m. while P. W. 1 a young girl of 16 years was returning from the field known as Kothacberuvu Isthuva, the accused was in the field bund of Rakoti Satyam and on seeing P. W. 1, the accused caught hold of her hand in the first instance and dragged her. When she got herself released from his clutches, the accused again caught hold of her saree and dragged her. Thereupon she raised hue and cry and upon hearing of which P. Ws. 3 and 4 who were in the neighbourhood arrived at the scene and on seeing them the accused ran away. The case of the prosecution was substantiated by the evidence of P. W. 1 the victim and P. Ws. 3 and 4 the other witnesses. Their evidence has been considered by the trial Court as well as the appellate-court in extenso and the same was believed by both the courts. The accused was accordingly convicted.

( 3 ) IN this revision, the contentions raised in the courts below have been reiterated viz. , that P. W. 1 is not speaking the truth for the reason that no scratches have been found on her person and the saree which was caught hold of by the accused was not torn off and the same was not produced before the Court. These two circumstances throw any amount of doubt regarding the manner of occurrence spoken to by P. W. 1. The other contention raised is that the presence of P. Ws. 3 and 4 is doubtful. According to the evidence. P. W. 4 does not own any land in the neighbourhood and P. W. 3 did not go to the scene as stated by him. These are the factual circumstances on which reliance has been placed to persuade me to come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not established its case beyond reasonable doubt. I have gone through the judgment of the appellate court and it has given cogent reasons for believing the prosecution case and I do not find any sufficient ground to disagree with its finding. The trial court has the advantage of seeing the demeanour of the witnesses and the manner in which they gave evidence. No substantial grounds except the grounds that were repeated before the court below have been urged before me. Under those circumstances, while exercising my revisional jurisdiction, I cannot lightly brush aside the reasoning given by the Courts below and come to a different conclusion. Therefore, in the absence of any substantial material I am not inclined to differ from the conclusion reached by the trial Court on the appreciation of evidence. The prosecution has established its case beyond any shadow of doubt and the conviction is legal and valid.

( 4 ) WITH regard to the sentence, Sri Satyanarayana, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the petitioner is aged about 19 years on the date when he was convicted by the trial Court. Though the petitioner made his statement under S. 313 Cr. P. C. , that he was aged about 21 years, as a fact, he is only 19 years and that therefore he is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. He further contends that though this point has not been raised in the court below, he may be permitted to raise this point and a report may be called for regarding the character and antecedents of the petitioner and the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act may be extended to him.

( 5 ) SECTION 29 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 says that subject to the provisions of S. 18, S. 562 of the Code shall cease to apply to the States or parts thereof in which this Act is brought into for