JUDGMENT :

1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID – 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned.

2. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 374 Cr.P.C. praying for the following reliefs:-

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and all the accused appellants may be acquitted for the offences alleged against them.”

3. The matter pertains to an incident that occurred in the year 1995 and the present appeal has been pending since 1998.

4. Vide impugned judgment dated 26.03.1998 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer in Sessions Case No. 73/95, 19/97, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:-

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the incident is of 23.09.1995. The allegation upon the appellants is that at 2:00 AM, the present appellants along with four other persons have taken away the girl of the complainant aged about 13 years for the purpose of marrying her. Learned counsel further submits that the girl was recovered on the next day and there was absolute no harm done to the girl.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that the prosecution has erred in developing a story that there was a call for exchange of brides between two villages, but when the present village did not give the girl as a bride, she was taken away by the present accused persons. Learned counsel further submits that four persons have been acquitted and five persons have been convicted. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the appellants have already undergone about three years of sentence, which is also noted by the learned trial court in the conclusion para of impugned order.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that taking a lenient view, while considering the undergone sentence as well as the fact that none of the parties were injured and the girl though taken away for marriage but was not harmed at all, is a fit case where the benefit of probation can be given to the present appellants.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks such direction particularly in light of the fact that appellant No.2 Prem Singh was a Government Servant.

9. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that the accused-appellants do not have any criminal antecedents to their discredit.

10. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants further submits that the sentence awarded to the accused-appellants was suspended by this Hon’ble Court vide the order dated 17.04.1998, passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Application for Suspension of Sentence No.198/1998, and thus, they are on bail.

11. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants however, makes a limited prayer that the accused-appellants may be granted benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

“4. Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct.—

(1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is