Partly allowed

Bane Singh and Ors. v. State

Rajasthan HC7 May 2015CRLA/295/1991

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged a 25-year-old conviction and sentence. The High Court maintained the conviction but granted probation under the Probation of Offenders Act for one year, discharged the effect of future recidivism, and ordered fresh bail bonds.

What did the court decide?

Convincing the charges maintained; appellants released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for one year upon furnishing a personal bond and surety; Section 12 benefit grante

Bane Singh and Ors. Vs State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT SB Criminal Appeal No. 295/1991 (Banne Singh & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan)

¶3

Date of Judgment :: 7^th May, 2015 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶4

Mr. Samarth Sharma, counsel for the accused appellants Mr. Jitendra Shrimali, P.P. for the State This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 29.7.1991 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Bas District Alwar in Sessions Case No. 57/1990, whereby he convicted the accused appellant Banne Singh for the offence under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him to undergo 1 years' RI with a fine of Rs. 200/-; while other two accused persons Mangal Ram and Ramesh have been convicted for the offence under Sections 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo 6 months' RI with a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year's RI.

¶5

Brief facts of the case are that on 3.8.1990, an FIR was lodged by Tek Chand Jat at Police Station, Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar against accused appellants and two other persons Natthu and Nirana. Thereafter the investigation was commenced and after

¶6

¶7

investigation, the police filed a charge sheet before the Magistrate concerned against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 323, 307/34 IPC, but since no case was found to have been made out against accused Natthu and Nirana, as such no charge sheet was filed against them. The Magistrae concerned committed the case to the Court of Sessions, who transferred the case to the Addl. Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Bas for trial. The trial court framed charges against the accused persons, who denied from the same and claimed trial. The prosecution produced witnesses and exhibited some documents. Thereafter the statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 CrPC. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court vide judgment and order dated 29.7.1991 convicted and sentenced the accused appellants, as indicated above. Against the aforesaid judgment, this appeal has been preferred.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the court below, but he is only requesting to this Court that the incident is said to have taken

¶9

¶10

place on 3.8.1990 i.e. about 25 years ago from today; the appellants are facing the trial since the last 25 years; at the time of incident the appellants were young persons and now they are old aged person; they have married and having the children of marriageable age; they are not the habitual offenders; it is the first offence of their life; and they are not previously convicted persons, the alleged offences are bailable, hence they should be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders' Act and benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders' Act should also be given to them, so that the impugned judgment will not affect their future in any way.

¶11

He has drawn the attention of this Court on the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Commandant 20 Bn Itb Police Versus Sanjay Binjola reported in 2001 (3) SCR 367, the relevant part of which is reproduced as under:

¶12

"While allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order we direct that despite confirmation of conviction by the learned Sessions Judge, the respondent be given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. Instead of sentecning him to any punishment, we direct the

¶13

¶14

respondent to be released on his entering into a bond with two sureties, to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during the period of two years and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The respondent shall furnish the bond and the sureties before the Trial Magistrate within a period of two months from today. We further hold respondent entitled to the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act."

¶15

Learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record.

¶17

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, in my view ends of justice would be met if the accused appellants are released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders' Act and benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act is also extended to them. Hence, this appeal is disposed of with the following directions: i) The appeal is partly allowed.

¶18

ii) The conviction of the appellants is maintained, but they are given the benefit of Probation of Offenders' Act

¶19

¶20

and it is directed that they shall be released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for a period of one year, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand) with one surety of the like amount before the trial court with the stipulation that they will appear before the Court concerned and receive the sentence awarded by the trial court as and when they are called upon to do so during the period of one year, and in the meantime they shall keep peace and be of good behaviour and will not commit any offence during the period of probation.

¶21

iii)The accused appellants are also extended the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders' Act, so that the impugned judgment will not affect their future in any way.

¶22

iv) The accused appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and they are directed to furnish fresh bail bonds before the trial court, as mentioned above.

¶23

v) The bonds shall be furnished by appellants within a period of three months from today, failing which the trial court shall take steps that the accused appellants are called upon to serve the sentence, as awarded to them by the trial court.

¶24

Impugned judgment stands modified, as indicated hereinabove.

¶25

¶26

(Mahesh Chandra Sharma), J.

¶27

All corrections made in the judgment / order have been incorporated in the judgment / order being E-mailed. Dilip Khandelwal

¶28

Bane Singh and Ors. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bane Singh and Ors. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxmi Kant and Ors. Vs State

Bhagwan Swaroop Vs State

Chagan Lal Vs State

Dhan Singh Vs State

Ranveer Vs State

Dinesh Kumar Vs State