Dismissed

Sunil v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC6 Mar 2017CRLR/1076/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two criminal revision petitions challenging the appellate court's orders. The appellate court had convicted the accused of offences under sections 341, 323, and 427 IPC (with the latter two as summon matters), acquitted them of other charges, and granted benefit of probation. The High Court upheld the probation as the offences were related to summon matters.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's criminal revision petitions were dismissed with no conviction altered.

Sunil Vs State and Ors. — Caste Atrocities | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B.Criminal Revision No. 1075 / 2016

¶4

Sunil S/o Shri Vinod Kumar,, By Caste Jain, Resident of 18, Khood Ka Bass, Pali.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan

¶8

Tarachand Sharma S/o Shri Heeralal Sharma

¶9

Lalit Sharma S/o Shri Tarachand Sharma

¶10

Chandrashekhar Sharma S/o Shri Tarachand Sharma, All by Caste Brahmin, Resident of Mopayaton Ki Bagechi, Ramleela Maidan, Tehsil and District Pali.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

S.B.Criminal Revision No. 1076 / 2016

¶13

Sunil S/o Shri Vinod Kumar,, By Caste Jain, Resident of 18, Khood Ka Bass, Pali.

¶14

----Petitioner

¶15

Versus

¶16

State of Rajasthan

¶17

Tarachand Sharma S/o Shri Heeralal Sharma

¶18

Lalit Sharma S/o Shri Tarachand Sharma

¶19

Chandrashekhar Sharma S/o Shri Tarachand Sharma, All by Caste Brahmin, Resident of Mopayaton Ki Bagechi, Ramleela Maidan, Tehsil and District Pali.

¶20

----Respondents

¶21

For Petitioner(s) : Mr Suresh Kumbhat

¶22

For Respondent(s) : Mr O.P.Rathi

¶23

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Judgment / Order

06/03/2017

(2 of 4)

[CRLR-1075/2016]

Both these criminal revision petitions have been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved with the judgment dated 20.04.2016 passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Pali (for short ‘the appellate court’ hereinafter), whereby it has disposed of two Criminal Appeal Nos.144/2015 and 145/2015 filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 03.07.2014 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali (for short ‘the trial court’ hereinafter) in Criminal Original Case No.230/2010.

¶29

Brief facts of the case are that on 03.02.2008, petitioner-complainant lodged an FIR No.44/2008 at Police Station Kotwali, Pali against the respondent Nos.2 to 4. The police after concluding the investigation into the aforesaid FIR has filed charge-sheet against the accused-respondents for the offences punishable under sections 341, 323 and 427 IPC. The trial court after conclusion of the trial has convicted the accused-respondents for the offence punishable under section 323/34 IPC, however, acquitted them for the offences punishable under sections 341 and 427/34 IPC. Instead of sentencing the accused-respondents for the offence punishable under section 323/34 IPC, the trial court has extended the benefit of section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short ‘the Act of 1958’ hereinafter) and directed them to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.400/- each under section 5 of the Act of 1958 and also directed that out of the said compensation amount, Rs.600/- be paid to the complainant and Rs.600/- to another injured Abhinav.

¶30

(3 of 4)

¶31

[CRLR-1075/2016]

¶32

Being aggrieved with the judgment dated 03.07.2014 passed by the trial court, the petitioner preferred two Criminal Appeal Nos. 144/2015 and 145/2015. Appeal No.144/2015 was preferred under section 11(2) of the Act of 1958 challenging the order of the trial court of granting benefit of probation to the accused-respondents, whereas appeal No.145/2015 was preferred under section 372 CrPC challenging the acquittal of the accusedrespondents for the offences punishable under sections 341 and 427/34 IPC.

¶33

The appellate court has allowed the Appeal No.145/2015 and set aside the acquittal of the accusedrespondents for the offence punishable under sections 341 and 427/34 IPC and convicted them for the said offences while maintaining their conviction for the offence punishable under section 323/34 IPC. However, the appellate court instead of sentencing the accused-respondents for the offences punishable under sections 341 and 427/34 IPC has extended the benefit of probation to them. Simultaneously, the appellate court dismissed the Appeal No.144/2015 filed by the petitioner under section 11(2) of the Act of 1958 and maintained the order of the trial court granting benefit of probation and paying compensation to the injured. Being aggrieved with the said orders passed by the courts below, the petitioner has preferred this criminal revision petition.

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders.

¶35

(4 of 4)

¶36

[CRLR-1075/2016]

¶37

It is noticed that while extending the benefit of probation to the accused-respondents, the appellate court has specifically observed that the offences, for which the accusedrespondents have been convicted, are related to summon matters and therefore, it is a fit case in which the benefit of probation can be extended to the accused-respondents.

¶38

This Court is of the opinion that the appellate court has given sufficient reasons for extending the benefit of probation to the accused-respondents.

¶39

Hence, there is no force in these revision petitions and the same are hereby dismissed.

¶40

(VIJAY BISHNOI)J.

¶41

m.asif/PS

Sunil v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ghishu Lal Vs State and Anr.

Subodh Vs State and Anr.

State Vs Ramesh and Ors.

Nand Lal Vs U.O.I.

Nikhil @ Banti Vs State

Ashok Kumar Vs State