Cr.A. No.519/2001. Cr.A. No.530/2001. Cr.A. No.569/2001. 16.03.2009 Present: Mr. P.C. Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant in Cr.A. No.519 of 2001. Mr. Vinay Thakur, Advocate, for the appellant in Cr.A. No.530 of 2001. Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate, for the appellant in Cr.A. No.569 of 2001. Mr. J.S. Guleria, Asstt. Advocate General, for the respondent. The matter was fixed today for hearing the convicts/ appellants, on the point of sentence and the reports of the Probation Officer were also called for with respect to appellants Siri Ram and Sandeep Kumar. This Court while acquitting Siri Ram for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, his conviction is upheld under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code for voluntarily causing injuries with a sharp edged weapon to PW1 Rohit Lakhanpal and the conviction of appellant Sandeep Kumar is also upheld under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code for inflicting sharp edged injury to PW2 Vinod Kumar. Further this Court upheld the conviction of appellant Anil Kumar under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code for causing simple injury to PW2 Vinod Kumar. -2- The reports from the Probation Officers have been received. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, on the point of sentence. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are the first offenders and there is no criminal history to their credit. At the time of alleged incident, they were collegians and now they have been settled down in their life and presently all of them are unemployed and belong to poor agricultural families. The sentence passed by the learned trial court may be modified and they be given the benefit of probation. I have considered the reports of the Probation Officer, in respect of Siri Ram and Sandeep Kumar appellants vis-à-vis the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. It is pertinent to note that the alleged incident had taken place on 23rd February, 2000. At that time, the appellants were students. During the trial of the case Siri Ram remained in the custody for some time but now except the present case, there is no criminal history to -3- their credit. Thus, keeping in view ages, antecedents, good conduct and behaviour of the appellants aforesaid in the village, as reported by the Probation Officer, I feel that an opportunity to reform may be accorded to them, thus instead of sentencing them at once, while modifying the order of sentence passed by the learned trial court, I am inclined to give them the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, in short “the Act”. Accordingly, each of the appellants Siri Ram and Sandeep Kumar are hereby given the benefit of Section 4 of the Act and thus ordered to enter into a bond, within three weeks from today, in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year. The fine amount of Rs.1,000/-,each which stands deposited by Siri Ram, Sandeep Kumar in the learned trial Court is converted into the compensation, which shall be paid to the injured PW1 Rohit Lakhanpal and PW2 Vinod Kumar, respectively, in equal proportion. -4- Insofar as the appellant Anil Kumar is concerned, he is admonished under Section 3 of the Act and the fine amount deposited by him in the learned trial court is also converted into the compensation which shall be paid to injured PW2 Vinod Kumar. The sentence passed by the learned trial court against the appellants stand modified as aforesaid. The matter is accordingly disposed of. Copy of this order be given dasti to the appellants. March 16, 2009. (Surinder Singh),J. (Pds)