IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to extend the benefit of probation to offenders under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, based on the circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence, and the character of the offender.

JUDGMENT :

1. Vide order dated 21.03.2023, the Coordinate Bench of this Court directed the learned Public Prosecutor to call for the whereabouts and present status of the accused appellants from the concerned Police Station.

2. Today, when the matter came up on its turn, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted the status report dated 19.02.2024 before the Court given to him by the SHO of Police Station Bayana, District Bharatpur (Raj.).

3. As per the status report dated 19.02.2024, the accused appellants No.1- Murari s/o Binori, No.2.Vishnu s/o Murari Lal and No.4 Raghuveer s/o Murari, have expired. Therefore, the criminal appeal qua the above named accused appellants stands abated. The said status report is taken on record.

4. So far as the criminal appeal filed by accused appellants No.3 and 5 namely; Sardar and Bahadur, is concerned, same is being heard and decided by this Judgment.

5. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellants against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 16.06.1994 passed by the Court of learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bayana (for short ‘the trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.28/1991, whereby, both the above-named accused appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:-

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

6. On filing of appeal, the sentence awarded to the accused-appellants was suspended vide order dated 29.06.1994 and they were released on bail.

7. Mr. Atul Maheshwari appearing on behalf of Mr. Virendra Agarwal, for the accused appellants instead of arguing the appeal on its merits with regard to challenge to the conviction and sentence, confines his arguments for grant of benefit of probation to the appellants under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1958’). Counsel further submits that except the present case, no case has been registered against the accused-appellants. Counsel further submits that the accused-appellants are living peacefully in the society without there being any criminal antecedents to their discredit.

8. Counsel further submits that the accused-appellants have faced trial for about three years and six months and against the impugned judgment, they preferred the appeal in the year, 1994. Thus, from the last more than 33 years, the accused-appellants are facing mental agony and harassment because of pendency of criminal case registered against them. Counsel further submits that out of total sentences, the maximum sentence awarded to the accused appellants is two years Rigorous Imprisonment. Counsel further submits that the accused appellant No.3- Sardar is 83 years of age and the accused appellant No.5 Bahadur is 59 years of age. Thus, taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, the accused-appellants may be given the benefit of probation under the provisions of the Act of 1958.

9. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State opposed the prayer made by the counsel appearing for the appellants and submits that looking to the allegations and the manner in which the incident took place, the appellants are not entitled for any kind of leniency in awarding sentence as well as the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Act of 1958.

10. Considered the submissions made by the Counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

11. Learned trial Court while considering the issue of granting the benefit of probation to the accused appellants, declined their prayer observing that