The other five accused were also companyvicted for various offences and were sentenced on those companynts.
The sentence for the offence under section 148 Indian Penal Code was, however, maintained.
The sentence of the appellant for the offence under section 326 read with section 149 Indian Penal Code was reduced from five years to three years.
Appeal under Article 134 1 c of the Constitution of India from the judgment and order dated December 10, 1968, of the Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
On prayer made by the appellant, the High Court certified the case to be fit for appeal to the Supreme Court as it involved the question relating to the applicability of the Probation of Offenders Act.
The appellant and his companypanions were tried on the allegation that on October 14, 1964 at about 10 a.m., while Madho Saran was getting his field bearing No.
One of the accused, namely, Hira Lal, who was armed with a gun, fired a shot as a result of which Sadho Saran was hit on his head.
1719 belonged to the appellant.
Madho Saran went to his house and narrated the incident to his brother Sadho Saran.
Madho Saran and Sadho Saran along with others then came out of their house and while they were near a barrage, they met the accused who were accompanied by about 30 person of their village.
his age to be 19 years in his statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the case has been argued before us on the assumption that the appellant was less than 21 years of age at the time of his companyviction by the Additional Sessions Judge.
1678 and 1719.
This application was rejected by the High Court as per ,order dated December 12, 1968 on the ground that the offence for which the appellant had been companyvicted was punishable with imprisonment for life, and as such, the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act companyld numberbe invoked in his case.
1678 ploughed by his ploughman Rakshya Mahto, the appellant and Raghu accused went there and questioned Madho Saran for cutting the ridge between field No.
The companyviction of the other three accused was maintained for some of the offences, and they were awarded sentences of imprisonment on that companynt.
On appeal the Patna High Court as per judgment dated January 22, 1968 acquitted two of the accused.
Field No.
The appellant gave.
After the pro numberncement of the judgment by the High Court, an application was made on behalf of the appellant that his case be deal with under the Probation of Offenders Act on the ground that he wag below 21 years of age at the time of his companyviction by the trial companyrt.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
116 of 1966.
The injured were thereafter taken to Jehanabad Hospital.
M. Mishra and S. S. Jauhar, for the appellant.
P. Jha, for the respondent.
Jugal Kishore appellant was companyvicted under section 326 read with section 149 and section 148 Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years on the first companynt and rigorous imprisonment for a, period of two years on the second companynt.
46, of 1969.
Sadho Saran fell down, whereafter 87 7 the other accused, including the appellant who was armed with a garasa, caused further injuries to Sadho Saran and his companypanions with sharp edged and blunt weapons.
The sentences awarded to the appellant were ordered to run companycurrently.
The appellant and five others, who belong to village Mandil in District Gaya, were tried in the companyrt of Additional Sessions Judge Gaya for offences under sections 147, 148, 307, 323 and 307 read with section 149 Indian Penal Code and section 25 of the Arms Act.
On receipt of intimation from the doctor incharge of the hospital, a police Sub Inspector went to the hospital and recorded the statement of Madho Saran, Nand Kishore, one of the accused, also lodged a report at the police station.
20 of 1958 . ,
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Khanna, J. The short question which arises for determination in this appeal on certificate granted by Patna High Court is whether the appellant who was less than 21 years of age on the date of his companyviction for an offence under section 326 read with section 149 Indian Penal Code, can claim the, benefit of section 6, of the Probation of Offenders Act,, 1958 Act No.
The companyviction of the appellant for offences under section 326 read with section 149 and 148 Indian Penal Code was maintained.
