Dismissed

Jairam v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC14 Feb 2018CRLR/1095/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under Section 451 CrPC against an appellate order dismissing a belated appeal, the High Court held there were no grounds for interference as the trial court correctly granted probation and the appellate court rightly rejected delay condonation.

What did the court decide?

Petition for revision dismissed with no interference in the trial or appellate court orders.

Jairam Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶2

BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1095/2017.

¶4

Jairam Son of Shri Malaram, aged 51 years, by caste Jat, Resident of Village Togran Kalan, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan, through P.P.

¶7

Niranjan Son of Dwarka Prasad,

¶8

Ramesh Kumar Son of Shri Charan Singh

¶9

Both residents of Village Togran Kalan, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.).

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Present in person.

¶11

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶12

Judgment / Order

¶13

14/2/2018

¶14

I have heard the petitioner, who is present in person and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

¶15

At the instance of the petitioner, FIR was registered against respondents No. 2 and 3 under Section 451, 341, 323, 325 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’). Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 26.2.2014 ordered the conviction of the accused under Section 341, 323, 451 IPC. While passing the order of sentence of the even date, Trial Court noticed that in terms of compromise effected between the parties, accused had been acquitted qua offence under Section 325 IPC. Hence, the learned Trial Court extended the benefit of Probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the accused. Petitioner preferred an appeal on 7.6.2017 against the said order. Vide order dated 9.6.2017, Appellate Court held that there was no sufficient reason to condone the delay of 3

¶16

years and 4 months in filing the appeal.

¶17

In the present case, Trial Court, while passing the order dated 26.2.2014, has noticed that in view of the compromise effected between the parties, accused were acquitted of the offence under Section 325 IPC. So far as injury falling under Section 325 IPC is concerned, the same had been sustained by Rampyari, wife of the petitioner. The compromise was attested by injured Rampyari and consequently accused were acquitted qua offence under Section 325 IPC. Since the petitioner was not in town, the compromise could not be attested by him and consequently charges were framed against accused under Section 323, 341 and 451 IPC.

¶18

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, learned Trial Court rightly granted benefit of probation to the accused. Although, the Trial Court had decided the appeal on 26.2.2014 but the petitioner had failed to file the appeal within the prescribed time of limitation and had filed the same after more than three years. Hence, the Appellate Court rightly held that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, no ground for condoning the delay in filing the appeal was made out.

¶19

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, no ground for interference by this court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, is made out.

¶20

Dismissed.

¶21

(SABINA)J.

¶22

Mrg./41

Jairam v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jairam v. State of Rajasthan 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

Sanjay Kumar Soni Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs Pradeep Kumar and Ans

Mukesh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Ritu Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Mohammad Ali @ Ali @ Peer Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Norang Lal Vs State of Raj Asthan through Pp