The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and the entitlement of the accused-appellants to the benefit of probation based on the absence of criminal antecedents and the nature of the injuries suffered by the victim.

JUDGMENT

1. The matter pertains to an incident that occurred in the year 2000 and the present appeal has been pending since 2000.

3. Vide impugned judgment dated 19.10.2000 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Phalodi in Sessions Case No.4/2000 acquitted the accused-appellants for the offences under Sections 307 and 307/149 IPC but convicted them for the offences under Sections 148, 326/149, 325/149, 324/149 and 323/149 IPC and sentenced as under:- (Sentences will run concurrently). Section 148 IPC:- Six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.100/- in default of payment of which they were ordered to undergo further one months' S.I. (each).

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

5. 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 10.11.2000, passed in S.B. Criminal Bail Application No.432/2000 and thus, they are on bail.

6. 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 expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding three years, as the court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour: Provided that the court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond. (2) Before making any order under sub-section (1), the court shall take into consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation to the case. (3)...

(4)...

(5)... "

7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the appeal and submits that looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the well reasoned speaking order passed by the learned court below, the accused-appellant(s) are not entitled for any indulgence by this Court.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case.

9. In Arvind Mohan Sinha v. Amulya Kumar Biswas (1974) 4 SCC, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-

"The Probation of Offenders Act is a reformative measure and its object is to reclaim amateu