358.99Appeal+
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 358 OF 1999
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station,
Markhel, Tq. Degloor,
Dist. Nanded.
APPELLANT
-VERSUS-
1. Kondiba S/o Gunda Aswale
(Appeal abated as per Court's
order dated 27.09.2007)
2. Gopal S/o Kondiba Aswale,
Age : 28 yrs.,
3. Namdev S/o Kondiba Aswale,
Age : 28 yrs.,
4. Pundlik S/o Kondiba Aswale,
Age : 30 yrs.,
5. Vithal S/o Kondiba Aswale,
Age : 28 yrs.,
6. Shivaji S/o Bhimrao Patil,
Age : 38 yrs.,
7. Tanaji S/o Ramchandra Patil,
Age : 24 yrs.,
8. Gopal S/o Ramchandra Patil,
Age : 24 yrs.,
9. Vijay S/o Ramchandra Patil,
Age : 24 yrs.,
::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2017 00:33:52 :::
358.99Appeal+
2
10. Anant S/o Ramchandra Patil,
Age : 25 yrs.,
11. Mohan S/o Gangaram Patil,
Age : 55 yrs.,
12. Kondiba S/o Mohan Kere,
Age : 25 yrs.,
13. Bhagwan S/o Dnyanoba Patil,
Age : 42 yrs.,
All R/o Yedur (Bk.) Tq. Degloor.
RESPONDENTS
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 337 OF 1999
1. Kondiba S/o Gunda Aswale,
(Abated as per Court's
order dated 27.09.2007)
(in Appeal No.358/1999)
2. Pundlik S/o Kondiba Aswale,
Age : 33 yrs.,
3. Shivaji S/o Bhimrao Patil,
Age : 41 yrs.,
4. Tanaji S/o Ramchandra Patil,
Age : 27 yrs.,
5. Vijay S/o Ramchandra Patil,
Age : 27 yrs.,
All. Occ : Agri., R/o. Yedur (Bk)
Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded.
APPELLANTS
-VERSUS-
::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2017 00:33:52 :::
358.99Appeal+
3
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station, Markhel,
Tq. Degloor, District : Nanded.
RESPONDENT
...
Mr. R.V. Dasalkar, APP for appellant-State in
Appeal No.358 of 1999.
Mr. U.B. Deshmukh, Advocate for appellant no.3 and
holding for Mr. V.D. Salunke for appelalnts in
Appeal No.337 of 1999.
Mr. U.B. Deshmukh, Advocate holding for Mr. S.J.
Salunke, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 13 in
Appeal No.358 of 1999
Respondent No.1 - abated in Appeal No. 358 of
1999.
...
CORAM: S.S. SHINDE AND
S.M. GAVHANE, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 16TH JUNE,2017.
DATE OF PRONOUNCING JUDGMENT: 23rd JUNE, 2017.
JUDGMENT (PER S.S. SHINDE, J.):
Criminal Appeal no. 358 of 1999 is filed by the State challenging the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli, Dist. Nanded in Sessions Case no.61 of 1996, thereby acquitting the respondent nos.1 to 13 i.e. original accused nos. 1 to 13 for the ::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2017 00:33:52 ::: 358.99Appeal+ 4 offences punishable under Sections 148, 307 read with section 149, Section 337 read with section 149, Section 323 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P.C.") and Section 37(1) read with section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
Criminal Appeal No. 337 of 1999 is filed by original accused nos.1 - Kondiba S/o Gunda Aswale, accused no.-4 Pundlik S/o Kondiba Aswale, accused no.6 - Shivaji S/o Bhimrao Patil, accused no.7 - Tanaji S/o Ramchandra Patil and accused no.9 - Vijay S/o Ramchandra Patil, challenging the judgment and order dated 7th August, 1999, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli, District Nanded in Sessions Case No.61 of 1996, thereby convicting them for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 325 read with section 149 of I.P.C.
2. The prosecution case in nut-shell, is as under:-
::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2017 00:33:52 :::
358.99Appeal+ 5 A) Informant - Sopanrao (PW-1) resides with his wife Inderbai (PW-2), daughter Rukminibai (PW-3) and two sons, namely, Dhanaji (PW-4) and Pundlik (PW-5) at village Yedur. All accused nos. 1 to 13 are also residing at village Yedur where an informant is residing. On the previous day of incident, the quarrel took place in between the informant's daughter Rukmini and one woman i.e. relative of accused no.1 Kondiba, at the river side, and therefore, informant Sopanrao had accosted the aforesaid woman, who is relative of accused no.1 Kondiba.
B) On the next day of the aforesaid quarrel i.e. on 27th December, 1993 at 8:00 a.m., the informant came out side his house and proceeded to his field. At that time, accused no.1 Kondiba pelted one stone, which hit on head of informant Sopanrao. The accused no.1 asked the informant as to why he quarreled with the woman, who is his ::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2017 00:33:52 ::: 358.99Appeal+ 6 relative. Thereupon, accused no.1 Kondiba asked other persons to beat the informant. Accused no.6 Shivaji Bhimrao Patil and accused no.7 Tanaji Ramchandra Patil, thereupon beat informant Sopanrao by means of an iron pipes on his legs, head, stomach and back, and therefore, the informant fell down. Rest of the accused assaulted informant Sopanrao by means of stones, iron pipes and sticks. Informant Sopanrao sustained bleeding injuries on his different parts of the body. The informant's wife, daughter and two sons on receiving information of the said incident, rushed to the place of incident and tried to rescue the informant. At that time, the accused persons also assaulted the informant's wife (PW-2) and two sons PW-4 and PW-5. The other persons of the village, namely Bhaurao, Shamrao, Laxman, Vithal, Gyanoba and Arjun Malgonda intervened and pacified the quarrel.
C) Informant Sopanrao was thereafter taken ::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2017 00:33:53 ::: 358.99Appeal+ 7 to the Police Station, Markhel and he lodged a report (Exh.31) on 27th December, 1993 at 2 p.m. On the basis of the said report, the crime was registered at Police Station, Markhel. Thereafter, the informant was referred to Civil Hospital at Degloor for medical treatment. The informant's wife (PW-2) and two sons (PW-4) and (PW-5) were also referred to the same Hospital for medical treatment. Dr. Venakt Malshetwar (PW-10) examined the aforesaid persons and he found in all 10 injuries over different parts of the body of informant - Sopanrao. He also found fracture to the lower end of the left femur with swelling over left knee joint of informant-Sopanrao. He thereafter referred the informant to Civil Hospital, Nanded for further treatment. He also found injuries over different parts of the body of informant's wife and two sons. He accordingly issued certificate (Exh. Nos. 63 to 66) in respect of the informant and the aforesaid three persons. He received X-ray plates, as regard the fracture ::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2017 00:33:53 ::: 358.99Appeal+ 8 found by him over the femur of the informant. On examination of that X-ray plate, he found that, there was a fracture of the lower end of left femur of informant Sopanrao. He accordingly issued second certificate Exh.67 as regard to the said injury.
D) Mirza Rahamutula Baig, the Police Sub- Inspector (PW-11) prepared spot panchnama Exh. 49, seized the blood stained clothes of informant Sopanrao, arrested the accused and seized weapons used by them, namely sticks and pipes in commission of the aforesaid crime. He also prepared seizure panchnama in respect of seizure of the cloths and weapons. He also recorded statements of other witnesses from 27th December, 1993 to 29th December, 1993. He on completion of an investigation filed charge sheet against accused nos. 1 to 13 for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 337, 325, 323 r/w Section 149 of I.P.C. and under section 37(1) r/w ::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2017 00:33:53 ::: 358.99Appeal+ 9 Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Degloor. E) Thereafter, the application (Exh.81) was made by the A.P.P. before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Degloor for addition of offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. in the charge sheet and for committal of case to the Court of Sessions. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Degloor rejected the said application. However, a revision petition No.32 of 1995 filed by the learned APP against the rejection of the said application, came to be allowed by the High Court on 8th May, 1996, and the High Court directed in the said revision petition that the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. be added in the charge sheet, and the Magistrate shall proceed with the case in accordance with the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, section 307 of I.P.C. was added in the charge sheet. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, ::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2017 00:33:53 ::: 358.99Appeal+ 10 the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Degloor committed the case to the Court of Sessions. F) The Sessions Court framed charge at Exh.13 against accused nos. 1 to 13 for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 307 read with section 149 I.P.C., section 337 read with section 149 of I.P.C., section 323 read with section 149 of I.P.C. and under Section 37(1) r/w Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The charges were read over and explained to each of the accused in vernacular, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused is of total denial.
G) The statements of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were also recorded and the suggestions were given by the defense counsel to informant Sopanrao during the cross examination and the defence of the accused was that informant ::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2017 00:33:53 ::: 358.99Appeal+ 11 Sopanraro and his family members were proceeding on a Bullock Cart, and at that time, the said Bullock Cart was overturned, and the informant and his family members sustained injuries, however, the false case is filed against them due to politics in the village.
3. After recording the evidence and conducting full fledged trial, the trial Court convicted accused nos.1, 4, 6, 7 and 9 for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 325 read with section 149 of I.P.C. The trial Court then acquitted all the accused persons for the offences punishable under sections 148, 307 read section 149, section 337 read with section 149, section 323 read with section 149 of the I.P.C. And section 37(1) read with section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. So also the trial Court acquitted accused nos. 2, 3, 5, 8 and 10 to 13 for the offences punishable under sections 143 and 147 of the I.P.C. Hence Criminal Appeal No. 358 of ::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2017 00:33:53 ::: 358.99Appeal+ 12 1999 is filed by the State against the judgment and order of acquittal and Criminal Appeal No.337/1999 is filed by the original accused nos.1, 4, 6, 7 and 9 against the judgment and order of conviction.
4. While arguing the appeal filed by the State, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submits that, keeping in view the injuries sustained by informant Sopanrao and also the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the trial Court ought to have convicted the accused for the offence punishable under section 307 read with section 34 of the I.P.C. He submits that, out of 13 accused, who were tried by the trial Court, the trial Court acquitted some of the accused, without appreciating the prosecution case that, there are overwhelming evidence of eye witnesses, which gets corroboration from the medical evidence and also recovery of pipes and sticks. Therefore, he submits that, the appeal filed by the State ::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2017 00:33:53 ::: 358.99Appeal+ 13 deserves to be allowed.
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the original accused invites our attention to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and submits that, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses suffers from contradictions and improvements. It is submitted that, the medical evidence clearly demonstrates that, an alleged incident has not taken place at one time and it appears that, there are more than one incidents. It is further submitted that, it is the case of the prosecution that, there were number of persons gathered at the spot and in that background, it was not possible for the witnesses to identify the accused. In such a mob, there can be a mistake in identity. An overt act attributed qua each of the accused and also an alleged injuries sustained by Sopanrao and other witnesses do not disclose any grievous injuries, which is sufficient in ordinary course to cause death of ::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2017 00:33:53 ::: 358.99Appeal+ 14 Sopanrao and any other witnesses. It is submitted that, the trial Court, after taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, has extended the benefit of doubt and acquitted them for an offence punishable under section 307 read with 34 of I.P.C. It is submitted that, in first place, an alleged incident had never taken place and the witnesses have suffered injuries in an accident. Secondly, even if, without admitting but assuming that, such incident had taken place, keeping in view the number of persons gathered at the spot of incident and an alleged weapons used by the accused, there is every possibility of mistake in identity by the prosecution witnesses, and therefore, in such a situation the benefit of doubt deserves to be given in favour of the accused. It is submitted that, after proper scrutiny of the evidence, the trial Court has taken a plausible view and acquitted 8 accused from all the charges levelled against them and in fact the said benefit ought to have been extended ::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2017 00:33:53 ::: 358.99Appeal+ 15 even in favour of the appellants in Criminal Appeal no.337 of 1999. The seizure of the alleged weapons is made after 3 months and 11 days of the incident, therefore, it create doubt in the prosecution case of seizure of such weapons. Sopanrao (PW-1) has never stated in his evidence that, the injuries are caused in the said incident, and his mere contention is that, the accused assaulted him by means of sticks, stones and pipes. There are discrepancies as regards the age of the injuries, which are brought on record by the prosecution. Wheel marks of the bullock cart were appearing over the body of Sopanrao, and therefore, the said supports the defence plea. The reasonings and findings given by the trial Court are not based on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and those are contrary to the evidence brought on record. The prosecution examined only interested witnesses and left out independent witnesses, who could have thrown the light on the real incident. The ocular evidence is not ::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2017 00:33:53 ::: 358.99Appeal+ 16 supported by the medical evidence. There is no specific role attributed to the appellants- original accused in Criminal appeal no. 337 of 1999 by the informant in the first information report. It is submitted that, belatedly the supplementary statement of Sopanrao was recorded and he falsely implicated some of the accused. The sum and substance of the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the accused is that, in first place, the incident as alleged had never happened. Secondly, the prosecution has tried to suppress the genesis of the incident. In support of said contentions, he placed reliance in the case of State of M.P. V/s Mishrilal and others1. It is the case of the prosecution that, informant - Sopanrao and other prosecution witnesses have sustained the injuries in an accident. Without admitting but assuming that, the incident had taken place, the medical report, and in particular, the age of the injuries clearly shows 1 2015 1 JLJ 153 ::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2017 00:33:53 ::: 358.99Appeal+ 17 that, there was more than one incident. However, the prosecution has suppressed the other incident, if any. It is submitted that, there was no motive or intention to assault Sopanrao and other prosecution witnesses, as it is apparent from the prosecution case that, the accused were not possessing any deadly weapons. In support of aforesaid contentions learned counsel pressed into service an exposition of law in the case of Krishnegowda and ors V/s State of Karnataka by Arkalgud Police2. Therefore, relying upon the grounds taken in the appeal memo, the learned counsel submits that, the incident had taken place 20 years back, and therefore, the benefit of doubt deserves to be extended in favour of the accused. He submits that, the appeal filed by the appellants - original accused may be allowed and the appeal filed by the State may be dismissed.
Without prejudice to arguments already 2 2017 Supreme (SC) 289 ::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2017 00:33:53 ::: 358.99Appeal+ 18 advanced, by way of alternate submission, he argued that, in case this Court is not inclined to entertain the appeal filed by original accused, in that case, the benefit under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 may be extended in favour of them, since there are no previous criminal antecedents against the accused.
5. We have heard the learned A.P.P.
appearing for the appellant/State in Criminal Appeal No.358/1999 and the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/original accused in Criminal Appeal No.337/1999 and the respondents/original accused in Criminal Appeal No.358/1999 at length. With their able assistance, we have carefully perused the entire evidence brought on record by the prosecution.
6. It would be relevant to discuss the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, who claimed that, they have witnessed the incident. Sopanrao ::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2017 00:33:53 ::: 358.99Appeal+ 19 Vithalrao Sherekar in his deposition stated that, Kondiba Gunda (accused no.1) pelted stone on his back, which caused injury to him. He further stated that, Gopal (accused no.2) gave blow with pipe on his chest, Pundlik (accused no.4) gave pipe blow on his left thigh, Vithal (accused no.5) gave blow of pipe on his waist, Shivaji (accused no.6) pelted stone on his left knee joint and also hit stone on his right shoulder, Tanaji (accused no.7) hit water pipe on his head, Gopal (accused no.8) hit with pipe on left side of his back and gave blow on his neck and Vijay (accused no.9) gave pipe blow on his chest. He further stated that, Anant (accused no.10) gave pipe blow on his back, Mohan (accused no.11) beat with stick on left side ribs, Kondiba Mohan (accused no.12) beat him with stick on right thigh and Bhagwan (accused no.13) hit stone on his right wrist. So far role and overt act attributed to Kondiba Gunda by Sopanrao (PW-1) is concerned, it gets corroboration from the evidence of Inderbai ::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2017 00:33:53 ::: 358.99Appeal+ 20 (PW-2), Dhanaji (PW-4) and Pundlik (PW-5). So far role played and overt act attributed to Pundlik by Sopanrao (PW-1) is concerned, it gets corroboration from the evidence of Inderbai (PW-2), Dhanaji (PW-4) and Pundlik (PW-5). So far role played and overt act attributed to Shivaji by Sopanrao (PW-1) is concerned, it gets corroboration from the evidence of Inderbai (PW-2), Dhanaji (PW-4) and Pundlik (PW-5). So far role played and overt act attributed to Tanaji by Sopanrao (PW-1) is concerned, it gets corroboration from the evidence of Inderbai (PW-2), Dhanaji (PW-4) and Pundlik (PW-5). So far role played and overt act attributed to Vijay by Sopanrao (PW-1) is concerned, it gets corroboration from the evidence of Inderbai (PW-2), Dhanaji (PW-4) and Pundlik (PW-5).
7. So far as the other accused are concerned, though Sopanrao (PW-1) attributed overt acts qua each of them, in view of the omissions, ::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2017 00:33:53 ::: 358.99Appeal+ 21 contradictions and improvements in the evidence of other witnesses, there is no sufficient corroboration to his version, and therefore, the trial Court has rightly extended the benefit of doubt in their favour.
8. We have also carefully perused the evidence of Inderbai (PW-2), Dhanaji (PW-4) and Pundlik (PW-5), and upon close scrutiny of their evidence, in our considered view the said evidence so far as accused no.1- Kondiba Gunda, accused no.4 - Pundlik, accused no.6 - Shivaji, accused no.7 - Tanaji and accused no.9 - Vijay for their conviction for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 325 read with section 149 of I.P.C. is concerned, the same deserves acceptance. The trial Court keeping in view the evidence of eye witnesses and medical evidence reached to the correct conclusion. In this respect, there is discussion in the impugned judgment in para no.68. ::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2017 00:33:53 :::
358.99Appeal+ 22
9. Upon perusal of the cross-examination of Sopanrao and other prosecution witnesses, we do not find any material discrepancies, improvements or omissions, which would nullify the substantive evidence of the eye witnesses, which gets corroboration from the medical evidence.
However, we find from the prelude of the incident that, the said incident arose on the trifle ground. Accused persons did not come prepared with an intention to cause grievous injuries on vital parts of Sopanrao or other prosecution witnesses. The medical evidence unequivocally indicates that, the injuries suffered by Sopanrao and other witnesses do not indicate that, the accused intended commission of murder of Sopanrao or any other prosecution witnesses. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the trial Court, after appreciation of the evidence in its proper perspective, has reached to the correct conclusion that, there cannot be ::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2017 00:33:53 ::: 358.99Appeal+ 23 conviction for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 of I.P.C. In that view of the matter, the appeal filed by the State stands dismissed.
10. The conviction of the appellants in Appeal No.337 of 1999 stands confirmed. However, so far sentencing part is concerned, we find considerable force in the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants-original accused that, the incident had taken place on 27th December, 1993 i.e. 24 years back and there is no criminal antecedents to the credit of four accused i.e. appellants in appeal no.337 of 1999, who are convicted by the trial Court. Upon careful perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that, there was prayer by the accused before the trial Court to extend benefit of provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act in their favour.
However, the trial Court rejected the said prayer by assigning reasons in paras 70 and ::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2017 00:33:53 ::: 358.99Appeal+ 24 71 of the impugned judgment. In our opinion, the said reasons are not sustainable. The provisions of sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act reads thus :-
"3. Power of Court to release certain offenders after admonition.- When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable under section 379 or section 380 or section 381 or section 404 or section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or any offence punishable with imprisonment for not more than two years, or with fine, or with both, under the Indian Penal Code, or any other law, and no previous conviction is proved against him and the Court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence, and the character of the offender, it is expedient so to do, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Court may, instead of sentencing him to any punishment or releasing him on probation of good conduct under section 4, release him after due admonition.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, previous conviction against a person shall include any ::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2017 00:33:53 ::: 358.99Appeal+ 25 previous order made against him under this section or section 4.
4. Power of Court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct.- (1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the Court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period not exceeding three years, as the Court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour:
Provided that the Court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond. (2) Before making any order under sub-section (1), the Court shall take into consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation to the case.::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2017 00:33:53 :::
358.99Appeal+ 26 (3) When an order under sub-section (1) is made, the Court may, if it is of opinion that in the interests of the offender and of the pubic it is expedient so to do, in addition pass a supervision order directing that the offender shall remain under the supervision of a probation officer named in the order during such period, not being less than one year, as may be specified therein, and may in such supervision order impose such conditions as it deems necessary for the due supervision of the offender.
(4) The Court making a supervision order under sub- section (3) shall require the offender, before he is released, to enter into a bond, with or without sureties, to observe the conditions specified in such order and such additional conditions with respect to residence, abstention from intoxicants or any other matter as the Court may, having regard to the particular circumstances, consider fit to impose for preventing a repetition of the same offence or a commission of other offences by the offender.
(5) The Court making a supervision order under sub- section (3) shall explain to the offender the terms and conditions of the order and shall forthwith furnish one copy of the supervision order to each of the offenders, the sureties, if any, and the probation officer concerned."
11. Keeping in view the aim and object of the ::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2017 00:33:53 ::: 358.99Appeal+ 27 Probation of Offenders Act, we are of the opinion that, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, when the entire incident had taken place on trifle ground and the accused never intended to cause grievous injuries on the vital part of Sopanrao and the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that, there are no criminal antecedents of the accused, in the peculiar facts of this case, we are inclined to invoke the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. However, to ascertain whether the appellants- accused are involved in any other crime, they have been convicted under any other offence or their conduct after release is not worthy to entertain their prayer for release them on probation of good conduct, we feel it appropriate to direct the District Probation Officer, District Nanded to make inquiry of appellants/accused nos. 4, 6, 7 and 9 except the appellant no.1 - accused no.1, who died during the pendency of this Appeal, within five weeks from today on the aforesaid ::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2017 00:33:53 ::: 358.99Appeal+ 28 aspects and submit report to this Court immediately on expiry of five weeks period from today. Depending upon the report of the District Probation Officer, this Court will consider the prayer of the appellants - accused nos. 4, 6, 7 and 9 to take lenient view, and to release them on probation of good conduct. Till such report is received by this Court and this Court passes further appropriate orders on the said report, the impugned judgment and order assailed in Criminal Appeal No.337 of 1999, so far sentencing part is concerned, shall not be acted upon. [S.M. GAVHANE, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.] SGA ::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2017 00:33:53 :::