The petitioners sought to challenge their conviction and sentence for assault. The High Court found no error in the findings of the trial court and the appellate court, noting that a lenient sentence including the benefit of probation had already been granted. The petition was dismissed.
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.
[2024:RJ-JD:25274]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1133/2002
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Vineet Jain, Senior Advocate |
|---|---|
| assisted byMr. Pravin Vyas | |
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. S.K. Mehar,PP |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
22/05/2024
(2 of 2)
[2024:RJ-JD:25274]
[CRLR-1133/2002]
of the matter and then observed that no error was there in the judgment of the trial Court, and therefore, the judgment of conviction was maintained. At the same time, the learned Sessions Judge observed that it was the first offence of the accused-petitioners and they had no criminal antecedent, therefore, the benefit of probation was extended to them. An amount of Rs.50,000/- was imposed upon the accusedpetitioners for providing the same to the victims as a compensation.
(FARJAND ALI),J
11-Samvedana/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioners for offences under Sections 323, 324 & 325 r/w Section 34 IPC were legally correct and sustainable.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mithu Lal S/o Unkar Lal
Shankar Lal S/o Unkar Lal
State of Rajasthan
FARJAND ALI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
