Rajasthan High Court set aside the prison sentences of nine petitioners convicted in a criminal case pending since 2003, granting them benefit of probation instead while maintaining their convictions.
Sentences set aside; benefit of probation granted on condition of furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000 each with surety for one year.
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.
[2023:RJ-JD:34574]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 650/2003
----petitionerss
Versus
State of Rajasthan.
| ----Respondent | |
|---|---|
| Forpetitioners(s) | : Mr.Pravin Vyas. |
| For Respondent(s) | : Mohd.Javed Gauri,P.P. |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
04/10/2023
This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 24.7.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Chittorgarh in Cr.Appeal No.65/2001 whereby the judgment dated 14.9.2001 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
(2 of 5) [CRLR-650/2003]
[2023:RJ-JD:34574]
Kapasan, District Chittorgarh in Cr.Original Case No.23/1995 was upheld and the petitioners were convicted and sentenced as
below:
| Conviction for under Sections |
offences : |
Sentences |
|---|---|---|
| 147 IPC | Three months’ | rigorous imprisonment. |
| 148 IPC | Three months’ | rigorous imprisonment. |
| 452 IPC | Six months’ ri Rs.200/- and further unde imprisonment. |
gorous imprisonment and a fine of in default of payment of fine, to r undergo ten days’ rigorous |
| 323 IPC | Three months’ of Rs.250/- an further under imprisonment. |
rigorous imprisonment and a fine d in default of payment of fine, to undergo fifteen days’ rigorous |
| 324 IPC | Four months’ of Rs.250/- an further under imprisonment. |
rigorous imprisonment and a fine d in default of payment of fine, to undergo fifteen days’ rigorous |
| 325 IPC | Six months’ ri Rs.300/- and further under imprisonment. |
gorous imprisonment and a fine of in default of payment of fine, to undergo twenty days’ rigorous |
| 326/149 IPC, (all petitionerss except Bhagwani) |
One year’s rig Rs.500/- and further under imprisonment. |
orous imprisonment and a fine of in default of payment of fine, to undergo one month’s rigorous |
| 326 IPC (petitioners Bhagwani only) |
One year’s rig Rs.500/- and further under imprisonment. |
orous imprisonment and a fine of in default of payment of fine, to undergo one month’s rigorous |
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently
The petitioners were tried for the offences by competent criminal court and convicted vide judgment dated 14.9.2001, which came to be upheld by appellate court vide judgment dated 24.7.2003.
During pendency of present revision petition, revisionistspetitioner Nos.2 and 9 namely Mangi Lal and Narayan have passed
[2023:RJ-JD:34574]
[CRLR-650/2003]
(3 of 5)
away and therefore, the revision petition abates to the extent of revisionists-petitioner Nos.2 and 9.
Learned counsel for the revisionists-petitioners submitted that the sentences so awarded to the revisionists-petitioners were suspended by this Court, vide order dated 1.8.2003 passed in S.B. Criminal Suspension of Sentences (Bail) Application No.175/2003.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had undergone detention for some period and the case is pending against them since 1995. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are facing agony of a long protracted trial. Learned counsel submitted that both the trial court and appellate court have overlooked the material evidence available on record. It was vehemently submitted that there is no evidence available on record to make out a case under Section 326 IPC. Learned counsel further urged that no X-ray plate was produced by the prosecution and in absence thereof, the revisionist-petitioners could not have been convicted for offence under Section 326 IPC. Further, the delay in lodging of the FIR and inordinate delay in examining the eye-witnesses of the incident who were present in the village, has not been explained, which casts doubts on their evidence and the prosecution story. Learned counsel fervently urged that the injury inflicted upon Ratan Lal by Bhagwati was a result of scuffle which ensued between them when Ratan Lal was trying to molest revisionist-petitioner Bhagwati.
Learned counsel in the alternative, submitted that without making any interference on merits/conviction, the revisionistpetitioners may be granted benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 since it is the first offence committed by the
[2023:RJ-JD:34574]
[CRLR-650/2003]
(4 of 5)
revisionist-petitioners. It was submitted that the revisionistpetitioners do not have any criminal antecedents and therefore, benefit of probation may be granted to the revisionist-petitioners.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. However, he was not in a position to dispute that the present revision petition is pending since 2003.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record of the case.
A perusal of the impugned judgments makes it manifest that the alleged incident happened in the year 1994 and the present revision petition is pending adjudication since 2003.
This Court after having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the revisionist-petitioners and having perused the record of the case, does not find any error in the orders impugned and therefore, is not inclined to set aside the order of conviction passed against the revisionist petitioners and the same is thus, maintained. However, this Court finds sufficient force in the argument of learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioners that in view of the fact that the revisionist-petitioners have no criminal antecedents and it was their first offence and during the pendency of present revision petition, the petitioners have not been found involved in any criminal activity, they deserve to be granted benefit of probation.
In the light of aforesaid discussion, precedent law and keeping in view the limited prayer made on behalf of the revisionists-petitioners, the present revision is partly allowed.
Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioners for the offences mentioned above, the sentences
[CRLR-650/2003]
[2023:RJ-JD:34574]
(5 of 5)
awarded to them are set aside by giving them benefit of probation. It would be on the condition that the revisionistpetitioners shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/each, along with a surety in a like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for a period of one year to keep peace and maintain good behaviour. During that period, the revisionist-petitioners shall furnish required bail bonds within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.
All pending applications stand disposed of.
Record of the case be sent back to the learned court below forthwith.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
/tarun goyal/ Sr.No.22
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction of the petitioners should be maintained or set aside?
Whether the petitioners are entitled to benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Utsav Lal & Ors.
State of Rajasthan
Kuldeep Mathur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
