This judgment dismisses Criminal Revisions and a Special Juvenile Appeal challenging a conviction under IPC 323 and the grant of probation. The court held findings were not perverse and probation was justified due to lack of antecedents.
Criminal Revision No. 941 of 2014 and Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 401 of 2014 are dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.941 of 2014
====================================================== 1. Pratima Kumari (Devi) Wife of Ashutosh Kumar 2. Ashutosh Kumar Son of Late Brijnandan Prasad Both resident of Village - Shahpur, P.S. Shahpur, District Bhojpur. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.401 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1532 Year- 2010 Thana -BHOJPUR COMPLAINT CASE DistrictBHOJPUR ====================================================== 1. Md. Shamshad son of Late Maksood Resident of Village / Mohalla - Azimabad, Police Station - Azimabad, District - Bhojpur
.... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.941 of 2014 (4) dt.11-11-2016
2/5
2014, were put on trial in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate1st Class, Ara, which arose out of a complaint petition filed by Md. Shamshad, in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ara, registered as Complaint Case No. 1532(c) of 2010, on the charge of commission of offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.941 of 2014 (4) dt.11-11-2016
3/5
Offenders Act.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.941 of 2014 (4) dt.11-11-2016
4/5
opinion, it is a settled proposition of law that in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 and 401of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. P.C.), this Court may interfere, only if the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below are found to be patently illegal and not at all sustainable. I do not find any such reason available in the present case.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.941 of 2014 (4) dt.11-11-2016
5/5
cases. Accordingly, Criminal Revisions No. 941 of 2014 and
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 401 of 2014, stand dismissed.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)
sunil/-c
U
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the concurrent findings of conviction were perverse or contrary to evidence to justify interference under Section 397 and 401 CrPC.
Whether the grant of benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act requiring a report from the Probation Officer was mandatory in this case.
Whether the conviction and the grant of benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act in special juvenile case were unjustified.
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Pratima Kumari
Ashutosh Kumar
Md. Shamshad
The State of Bihar
Pratima Kumari
Ashutosh Kumar
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
