JUDGMENT

Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.

This appeal, preferred by the appellants u/s 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.09.2012 passed by learned 2nd Additional Session Judge, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar, in Sessions Trial No.08 of 2006, State vs. Babaliman @ Virajman and others, whereby the Court below convicted the appellant/accused Babaliman @ Virajman under Sections 506, 323, 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as I.P.C.) and sentenced to undergo three months' R.I. under Section 323 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of one years and directed to pay Rs. 500/- under Section 325 IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 506 of IPC and in default of payment shall under go three days additional R.I.

2. Facts, in nutshell, are that Sunil Kumar, lodged an FIR on 28.04.2005 with the averments that on that day at about 3:30 PM, complainant and his family member had come in the compound of Tehshildar regarding theft of our crop then came to know that report had asked to the Patwari and Consolidation Officer by the Tehshildar regarding the theft crop of complainant. Then Consolidation Officer- Vikram Singh had come in the office of Tehshildar and said to the complainant we made the report, in this regard and took the complainant in our car gone to Consolidation Office. When they reached at Consolidation Office, all of a sudden Babalimaan, Kanti and 6 other persons came with gun and rifle in that office and surrounded by them and badly beaten Ushman, Advocate along with complainant by Babalimaan, Kanti and others. When the complainant ran away from the spot of incident, the accused opened the two round fires with the illegal guns, however, the complainant narrowly escaped. When the complainant ran away towards the jungle and reached at Police Station. The complainant thereafter lodged the report.

3. The I.O. during the course of investigation, inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan; obtained the permission for prosecuting the appellant; and after completion of investigation, submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant u/s 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506, 323, 325 IPC.

4. The case was, accordingly, committed to the court of Sessions after complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. Learned Sessions Court, accordingly, framed the Charge against the appellant. The charge was read over and explained to the appellant who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 Santram, PW2 Dr. Rajendra Singh, PW3 Devnath, PW4 Ushaman, PW5 Sunil Kumar, PW6 S.I. Vijaya and PW7 S.I. Chandrapal Singh.

7. Thereafter, the statement of the appellant was recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. who denied the allegations made against him. However, he did not produce any oral or documentary evidence in defence.

8. After appreciating the evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Trial Court, vide the judgment, under challenge, has convicted and sentenced the appellant, as afore-stated. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

9. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire evidence available on the record.

10. Mr. D.K. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellant fairly submits that the conviction of the appellant, as recorded by the Court below under Sections 506, 323, 325 IPC is perfectly justified as per the evidence recorded before the trial court and he also does not want to lay any challenge on the same; he only confined his prayer to the extent that the appellant may be extended the benefit of being the first-offender and she may be released on probation by giving her the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

11. Mr. A.K. Sah, learned A.G.A appearing for the State, admits that he has not received any report about the criminal antecedents of the