Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1510 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP [Crl.] No.4913 of 2008]

Halappa & Ors. … Appellants

Vs.

State of Karnataka … Respondent

J U D G M E N T

R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J.

Leave granted. Heard the learned counsel.

2. The appellants (accused 1 to 4) were convicted by JMFC, Raibag,  

for offences punishable under section 324 read with section 34 IPC, and  

under Section 504 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo  

simple imprisonment for three months and one month respectively, to run  

concurrently. The appeal and subsequent revision by the accused were  

dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Gokak, and by the High Court.   

3. Accused 2 is the son of accused No.1. Accused 3 is the wife of  

accused  No.1  and  accused  No.4  is  the  wife  of  accused  No.2.  The  

complainant  (PW1)  and  Accused  No.1  are  cousins.  There  was  pre-

existing enmity between the two families. According to the complainant,  

on 17.9.2003, when the complainant,  his wife (PW2) and his brothers

(PWs.3 and 6) were removing some agricultural implements kept by the  

accused in their land, the accused came to the spot armed with clubs, and  

abused and assaulted them, as a result of which the complainant, his wife  

and his two brothers suffered bleeding injuries. The incident, as narrated,  

was established by the evidence of injured eye-witnesses, namely, PWs.1,  

2, 3 and 6. All the independent eye-witnesses (PWs.4, 7 and 8) however  

turned  hostile.  Having  appreciated  the  evidence  of  the  injured  eye-

witnesses  and  the  documentary  evidence,  the  trial  court  held  that  the  

accused guilty and, consequently, convicted and sentenced them. This has  

been affirmed in appeal and revision and we find no ground to interfere  

with the conviction.  

4. The  only  question  remaining  for  consideration  is  whether  the  

benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short ‘the Act’) and  

Section 360 of Cr.P.C. ought to have been extended to the appellants.  

4.1) Accused  3  and  4  are  women.  They  did  not  have  any  criminal  

record or previous conviction. Having regard to their age, character and  

antecedents and the circumstances in which the offence was committed, it  

is expedient that they should be released on probation of good conduct  

under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4.2) Accused 1 and 2 are also first offenders. The learned Magistrate  

considered it unnecessary to extend them the benefit of probation, in view  

of the enmity between the families of the accused and the complainant.  

We fail to see how such enmity is relevant for considering probation. We  

are of the view that having regard to the circumstances of the case, nature  

of the offence, character of the offenders, the learned Magistrate ought to  

have  secured  the  report  of  the  Probation  Officer  and  then  passed  

appropriate order, taking note of Section 4 of the Act.     

5. We, accordingly, allow this appeal, in part, as follows :  

(i) The conviction is confirmed.  

(ii) In  regard  to  accused  3  and  4,  the  sentence  is  set  aside,  and  

instead of sentencing them at once to any punishment, we direct  

that they be released on their entering into personal bonds to  

appear and receive sentence when called upon during a period  

of one year, and in the meantime, to maintain peace and be of  

good behaviour.

(iii) In regard to accused 1 and 2, the sentence is set aside and the  

learned JMFC, Raibag, is directed to secure the report  of the  

Probation  Officer  in  relation  to  the  case  and  then  pass  

appropriate order in accordance with law, keeping in view the  

requirements of Section 4 of the said Act.

…………………………..J. (R V Raveendran)

New Delhi; …………………………..J. August  13, 2009. (P Sathasivam)