The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur dismissed a criminal appeal challenging a sentence reversal. The appellate court had granted probation and compensation instead of confirming the trial court's imprisonment.
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. 134 / 2016
Kana Ram S/o Birama Ram,, By Caste Jat, Resident of Village Pallana, District Bikaner.
----Appellant
Versus
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. T.R.S. Sodha
For Respondent(s) : Mr. L.R. Upadhyay, P.P.
For Accused-respondents: Mr. H.S. Shrimali
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Order
11/04/2017
This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved with the order dated 08.09.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as the ‘appellate court’) in Criminal Appeal No.02/2012, whereby while confirming the conviction of the accused-respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 324/34 IPC, the appellate court has reversed the order dated 20.03.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial court’) of awarding sentence to the
(2 of 3)
[CRLA-134/2016]
accused-respondents and has granted them benefit of probation. The appellate court has further directed the accused-respondents to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- each to the injured persons Birma Ram and Kana Ram.
Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellate court has grossly erred in granting benefit of probation to the accused-respondents. It is contended that the allegation against the accused-respondents of inflicting injuries with the deadly weapon has been sufficiently proved before the trial court and the trial court has rightly awarded sentence to them, but the appellate court without there being any justifiable reasons has granted benefit of probation to them. It is contended that the impugned order dated 08.09.2015 passed by the appellate court is not sustainable in the eye of law and, therefore, the same may be set aside and the sentence awarded to the accused-respondents by the trial court be confirmed.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the accused-respondents have opposed this criminal appeal and argued that the appellate court has given sufficient reasons for granting benefit of probation to them, therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment.
The trial court has taken into consideration the fact that the sentence, for the offences for which the accused-respondents have been convicted, is maximum imprisonment is of three years. It is also observed that the incident is of the year 1994 and the
(3 of 3)
[CRLA-134/2016]
accused-respondents had faced trial as well as the appellate proceedings for about 20 years and they have not been convicted earlier for any criminal offence.
After going through the findings of the learned appellate court in respect of granting benefit to the accused respondents, I do not find any illegality in the same.
In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this criminal appeal, and, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI)J.
Taruna
Kana Ram S/o Birama Ram
The State of Rajasthan
Balle Singh S/o Ashu Singh
Amar Singh S/o Ganesh Singh
Bhanwar Singh S/o Ashu Singh
Chhagan Singh S/o Ganesh Singh
Vijay Bishnoi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
