The court emphasized the necessity for trial courts to consider the application of probation laws for first-time offenders and the requirement to provide reasons for not applying such provisions.

JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Lavania, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that as the appellant no.1 has expired, hence the appeal qua appellant no.1 may be abated.

3. As per office report dated 12.11.2024, in compliance of order dated 21.09.2024, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi has sent his report dated 12.11.2024, according to which appellant no.1 has died.

4. In view of the above, the present appeal qua appellant no.1-Mazhar stands abated.

5. The instant Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2), Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of the appellants against the judgment and order 29.06.2009 passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short ‘SC/ST Act’)/F.T.C. No.5, Hardoi, in Session Trial No.679/1998 (State Vs. Mazhar & Another), arising out of Case Crime No.105 of 1997, P.S. Madhoganj, District Hardoi, convicting and sentencing the appellants to undergo six months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.100/-each under Section 323/34 I.P.C. In default of payment of fine to undergo one month additional sentence; to further undergo six months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.100/- each under Section 504 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine to undergo one month additional sentence; to further undergo one year simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.100/- each under Section 506 I.P.C. and in default of payment of to further undergo one month additional sentence; to further undergo six month simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.100/- each with a fine of Rs.100/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month additional imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

6. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is to the effect that on 14.07.1997 at about 7.30 P.M. the informant-Parsadi was going from his house to ease himself and when he reached near the house of Babu, the accused appellants Azhar and Musafir met him with lathi and danda in their hands and started abusing him. On being objected, the accused appellants assaulted him with lathi and danda. On raising alarm, Babu s/o Maggu and Nanhe s/o Chedi and other people of the village came there. Thereafter the accused ran towards their house while abusing the injured/informant- Parsadi.

7. The FIR was lodged at 11:30 P.M. against the accused appellants on the same day of the incident, i.e. 14.07.1997 as Case Crime No.105 of 1997, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act.

8. The Investigating Officer, after completing the investigation, submitted the charge sheet against the appellants under the aforesaid sections.

9. After submission of charge sheet, learned Magistrate took cognizance and thereafter the said case was committed to the Court of Session wherein it was registered as S.T. No.679 of 1998 and charges were framed against the appellants to which they denied and claimed trial.

10. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined as many as five witnesses, namely, Babu Lal (P.W.1), Parsadi -injured/informant (P.W.2), Dr. AS. Saxena (P.W.3), the then Area Officer-Pradeep Gupta (P.W.4) and Niwas Sharma - Constable (P.W.5).

11. That after closing of the evidence, statements of accused/ appellants was recorded by the trial court explaining the entire evidence and other circumstances, in which the appellants denied the prosecution story and the entire prosecution story was said to be wrong and concocted.

12. Thereafter, the learned trial court after hearing learned counsel for both the parties and appreciating the entire evidence, oral as well as documentary, found the accused/appellants guilty and convicted him as above.

13. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.

14. Learned counsel for the appellant no.2 submits that the accused-appellant no.2-Musafir ha