Criminal appeal filed by a 65-year-old appellant against the judgment granting benefit of probation to the respondent. The High Court found no illegality in the lower courts' judgments and dismissed the appeal.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B.Criminal Appeal No. 1211 / 2016
Shankar Lal S/o Shri Sriram, Village Pundlota, Tehsil Degana, Distt. Nagaur.
----Appellant
Versus
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vishal Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.P. Bhardwaj, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
24/03/2017
This criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved with the judgment dated 06.01.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Merta in Criminal Appeal No.64/2015 (04/2015) (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the appellate court’) whereby it has partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No.2 while granting him benefit of probation. The accusedrespondent has filed the above mentioned appeal before the appellate court being aggrieved with the judgment dated 30.01.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Degana District
(2 of 3)
[CRLA-1211/2016]
Nagaur (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the trial court’) in criminal case No.72/2013 whereby the trial court while convicting the accused respondent for the offences punishable under Section 447,323 and 324 IPC has sentenced him as under:
Section 447 IPC : One months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- in default to further under go seven days’ additional simple imprisonment. Section 323 IPC : Six months’ Simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to further under go 15 days’ additional simple imprisonment. Section 324 IPC : One years’ simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/- in default to further under go one months’ additional simple imprisonment.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
The appellate court while granting benefit of probation to the accused-respondent has observed that he has been facing trial for about last 12 years and at present the age of the accusedrespondent is 65 years and the offences committed by him are also not of serious nature. The appellate court has also taken into consideration the fact that it is the only criminal case filed against the accused-respondent and looking to all these circumstances the benefit of probation is liable to be given to the accused-
(3 of 3)
[CRLA-1211/2016]
respondent.
After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, I do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the courts below.
Hence, this criminal appeal is dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI)J.
Gaurav
Shankar Lal S/o Shri Sriram
The State of Rajasthan
Hanuman Ram S/o Shri Mangu Ram
VIJAY BISHNOI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
