The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of accused-appellants to the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, based on the absence of criminal antecedents and the maximum punishment that may be awarded under the relevant sections.

ORDER

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 (2) Cr.P.C. claiming the following reliefs:-

'It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal be accepted and the order/judgment of the trial court be set aside and the appellants be acquitted.'

3. The matter pertains to an incident that occurred in the year 1994 and the present appeal has been pending since 1994.

4. Vide impugned judgment dated 01.12.1994 the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989 in Sessions Case No.105/1994 convicted them for the offence(s) under Section(s) 451, 323 IPC and 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act and sentenced them as under:- (Sentences will run concurrently)

5. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that the offence under Sections 451, 323 IPC, as per the Indian Penal Code, are punishable with a maximum imprisonment up to one year and up to two years respectively; and the maximum punishment that may be awarded under Section 3(1) (x) of the SC/ST Act is up to five years, and, therefore, the appellant may be granted benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

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

7. 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 16.12.1994, passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.558/94 and thus, they are on bail.

8. 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)... '

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court to the judgment passed in the matter of Darshan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.54/199