Reformative justice was emphasized for first-time young offenders, allowing probation despite conviction for violent crimes.

Judgment

11/07/2025

1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Appeals, the appellants have assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.04.2023 passed in Sessions Case No.17/2018, whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar has convicted the appellants as under:-

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State, and the learned counsel for the complainant. The entire trial court record has been carefully and meticulously examined.

3. The genesis of the prosecution case is rooted in a parcha bayan given by the injured informant, Praveen Nokhwal, while he was undergoing treatment in the Male Orthopaedic Ward of the Govt. Hospital, Sri Ganganagar. As per his allegations, on 08.01.2018, at approximately 4:30 PM, while he was returning from his workplace and had reached near Mahila Park, he was allegedly intercepted and physically assaulted by the accused-

appellants. It was further alleged that the accused were armed with a country-made firearm (desi katta), iron rods, hockey sticks, and wooden lathis. Notably, appellant Sameer purportedly attempted to discharge the firearm with an intent to inflict fatal harm, which was averted due to timely intervention by bystanders.

3.1 Pursuant to this information, an FIR was registered for offences under Sections 3 08, 341, 323, and 143 of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of investigation, an application under Section 3 19 Cr.P.C . was filed and allowed, thereby summoning one Bilal Khan as an additional accused.

3.2 Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted for offences punishable under Sections 3 23 , 325, 341, 307, 147, 148, and 149 IPC . The learned trial court, after framing charges, proceeded with the trial for offences under Sections 3 08, 341, 323, 325, 147, 148, and 149 IPC . The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3.3 In support of its case, the prosecution examined 25 witnesses and exhibited 31 documents. In defence, the accused relied on a solitary document, i.e., Ex.D/1, being the statement of one Mukesh.

3.4 Upon conclusion of the trial and hearing final arguments, the learned trial court, vide judgment dated 13.04.2023, convicted the appellants for offences under Sections 148 , 341/149, 323/149, and 325/149 IPC , while acquitting them of charges under Sections 147 and 308 read with Section 149 IPC . Aggrieved by the findings of conviction and imposition of sentence, the present appeals have been preferred.

4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants fairly submitted that they do not intend to challenge the finding of guilt recorded by the trial court. However, they fervently urged this Court to exercise its discretion under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and extend the benefit of probation to the appellants, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

5. Upon perusal of the material available on record and after hearing all parties at length, it is evident that the appellants have been entangled in criminal litigation since 2018 and have endured the rigors of the criminal justice process