0 Single Bench M, .‘wwna— -u — CC BYN r B/CGJ V SCHEDULE £&HOF THE vvul IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR §CGL CRIMINAL APPEAL No {NV/ ‘0 ow” State of Chhattisgarh, APPELLANT/ PROSECUTION Through the District Magistrate District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS Manharan @ Manohar @ Gondu S / o 1tara Satnaml, , Sukhanandan, S/ o Titara Satnami, ged about — 26 years, 1. RESPONDENTS ACCUSED Aged about 28 yeam QWJ’I) \w 2 Palsingh @ Birami, S/ o Titara Satnami, Aged about —-2O years, Dilharan @ Beeru Satnami, S/ o Titara, Aged about 25 years, A11 R/o Surajpura, P S Lalpur, D1str1ct Bllaspur (CG) CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 11 SUB SECTION 2 OF THE PROBATION OF OFFENDERS ACT, 19538 AND SECTION 377/ OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FOR AWARDING SUITABLE SENTENC O! v " n A E. HEGH CQURT OF EHHATTISGARH AT B!L£3SPUR SB : HON’BLE MR. JU$T§€E PRITINEIER DIWAKEEQ. eRA. Na. 247/2014) Statie of Chhattisgarh V61‘S11S Manharan (é), Manohar (J Gondu 8r, Others Shri Ravindra Agrawal, RI. for the Sfate] applicant. $QN-APPLICANTS A?PEAL UNDER SEUTION 11 SUB SECTION 2 039‘ THE PROBATEON OF OFFENDERS ACT, 1958 & $ECTXON 377 §‘ THE €R.P.C. FOR AWARDING SUETABLE SENTENCE ORBER {95.05.2010} The present appeal which is barred by 87 (iays is dimcteé against the impugned judgment &. order dated 16.09.09 passed by the Additianal Sessions Judge, Mungeli, District Bilaspur in S.T. No. 5/07 whereby though convicting the respondents for the ottences under Section 32?:[34 of the {PC but has directed to rekease them by granting benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of OEenders Act. 2. Shri Agrawal fairly submits that the Cour below though has‘discretion to pass the order impugned in a manner inL which the same has been passed but according to him, thei Court below has taken a lenient view While granting benefit under the provision of Probation of Offenders Act. He submits that the gravity of the offence is as such Where the Court ought not to have granted the benefit of the provision of Probation of: Oifenders Act. i 3. i have perused the record as fuec’i by the State. 1‘ From the record it appears that after due appreciation of i the evidence, the Court below has convicted the‘ accused/respondents for the offence under Section 324] 34— of the IPC but has reieased them by granting benefit of Section 4 of the Probation ofoffenders Act. Anart from this: the Court has AP?LECANT t it Rs. 2,000 aS r the provisions of Section 5 of the litigation expenses unde has actsd Probation of OEenders Ac d no rea$on to iotexferc with the order impugned. The dismiseed. further diracted thevrespondent‘s to dagos Once the Coult below within the four comers jurisoiction vested with appeal it, I fm is liable to be ando is accordingly Sdl— Pritinker Diwaker 3 Judge I r y I t. o