Shankariya s/o Narsa vs State of Rajasthan

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.