IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that first-time offenders can be granted probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, considering the nature of the offence and the offender's character.

JUDGMENT :

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) :

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This is an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Cr.P.C.”) against the judgment and order dated 23/27.08.2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in Sessions Trial No.31 of 2004, whereby appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:-

3. The facts of the case are that 02.06.2003 at around 9 o’clock in the day, the informant’s brother-in-law (Devar) who was serving in Indian Army had come home on vacation and was working alone in their fields near the house of accused-Chandra Shekhar. On the same day itself at around 02:30 p.m. the wife of accused-Chandra Shekhar came to the informant’s house and said that they had killed her brother-in-law and asked her to bring his dead body. Thereafter, the informant went to the spot along with Gram Pradhan and Pooran Singh etc and saw her brother-in-law was lying unconscious and soaked in blood. There were many injuries mark on his body. There was a deep wound on his head caused by a sharp–edged weapon. When they asked Arjun who beat him, he could not say, but wrote the name of Chandra Shekhar and other accused person. Thereafter, he was sent to the Hospital.

4. On the basis of aforesaid report, the case was registered at the Police Station and the investigation of the case was started. The Investigating Officer/Patwari during course of investigation recorded the statements of witnesses, inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan and on being satisfied, submitted a charge-sheet against the accused persons under Sections 307 and 506 IPC in the court. Thereafter, charge was framed against the accused persons under Sections 307 r/w 34 and 506(2) r/w 34 IPC against which the accused persons denied and claimed trial.

5. As many as five witnesses were produced by the prosecution to prove its case against the appellants. They are PW1-Dr. I.A. Khan, PW2-Smt. Sita Devi (informant), PW3- Arjun Singh (injured witness), PW4-Puran Singh and PW5-Patwari Dhangiri Goswami.

6. After prosecution evidence, the statements of accused-appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they stated that the witnesses were giving false testimony against them. On completion of trial, the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused persons as mentioned in paragraph 2 of this judgment.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the entire documents available on record.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants having argued extensively finally submitted before this Court that the judgment and order passed by the trial court is based on the evidence which is not reliable due to several contradictions and developments during trial. He also argued and submitted alternately that if this Court is not convinced on the arguments advanced by him, the appellants may be extended the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act of 1958’).

9. To this submission learned State counsel has no serious objection and he also admitted that the appellants can be extended the benefit of first offenders Act.

10. It was also argued that the appellants are now running in their late forties; it was their first and only offence; none of the appellants has any criminal antecedent; they belong to the poor strata of society and also have liability of their children. It is also submitted that alleged incident was not a premeditated one and caused by sudden quarrel in which injured asked appellants not to throw bottles and litters in their field. The injured sustained only one injury on his head. Appellants are small level hill farmers and have no criminal history.

11. Learned State Counsel