AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioners, five in number, have been convicted vide
judgment dated 24th April, 1995 for an offence punishable under
Section 147 IPC for which they have been sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for three months; for an offence punishable
under Section 323 IPC for which they have been sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for three months; for an offence
punishable under Section 325 / 149 IPC for which they have been
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months; for an
offence punishable under Section 452 IPC for which they have
been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
Additionally only petitioner No.1 has been convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 379 IPC for which he has been
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
The appellate court vide decision dated 4 th October, 1997
while maintaining the conviction has granted benefit of probation
to petitioners No.2 to 5. This benefit has been declined to
petitioner No.1 on account of he being convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 379 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that name of
petitioners No.2 & 5 has inadvertantly been included in the
petition for the reason they are not aggrieved by their conviction
and being granted benefit of probation, they have no grievance
left.
Having perused the testimony of the eye-witnesses it
emerges that all accused entered the house of Smt. Moni. There
was no intention of any accused to commit theft. Some
altercation took place in which there was jostling and it is the
testimony of Moni that during jostling Shankara snatched the ear
ring from the left ear. Theft pertains to this ear ring. The same
has not been recovered.
In my opinion even Shankara is entitled to the benefit of
probation. The sentence imposed upon him is also suspended
directing that he should furnish a bond in sum of Rs. 5,000/- to
maintain good conduct for a period of one year before the learned
trial Judge. The fine imposed for the various offences would be
deposited by him. In harmony with the direction issued by the
learned appellant court 50% of the fine would be paid to Smt.
Pabu and 50% to Smt. Moni.
The petition is disposed of noting that on merits no
arguments were advanced.