Dismissed

Babli Devi W/O Pawan Kumar B/C Dhanka v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC15 May 2024CRLR/94/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a criminal revision assailing the appellate court's order enhancing compensation from Rs.2,000 to Rs.16,000 and refusing probation. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the trial and appellate court orders as legally and factually correct.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision petition dismissed; appellate court order upholding enhanced compensation of Rs. 16,000 and granting probation affirmed.

Babli Devi W/O Pawan Kumar B/C Dhanka Vs State… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:23007]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 94/2019

¶4

Babli Devi W/o Pawan Kumar, R/o Vill. Mandri Ps Khetri Dist. Jhunjhunu Raj.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan Through Pp, Raj.

¶8

Smt. Baayli @ Baai Devi W/o Manohar Lal, R/o Village Mandri Ps Khetri Dist. Jhunjhunu Raj.

¶9

Sajna Kumari D/o Manohar Lal, R/o Village Mandri Ps Khetri Dist. Jhunjhunu Raj.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Munish Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) : Mr. Imran Khan, PP

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶13

Order

¶14

15/05/2024

¶15

The present criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the complainant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner”) assailing the judgment dated 24.10.2018 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu in Criminal Appeal No.123/2018, whereby, the Appellate Court has partly allowed the appeal filed by the complainant and enhanced the amount of compensation from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.16,000/- As per the facts stated therein, the petitioner has lodged a report with the Police Station, Khetri, against the accused-respondent on 11.12.2017, alleging therein that the accused-respondent entered into her house and caught hold her and did obscene activities with

[2024:RJ-JP:23007]

[CRLR-94/2019]

(2 of 3)

her, until her sister in law came and rescued her and during the course of the aforesaid incident, she received certain injuries.

¶20

Upon this report, Crime No.535/2017 was registered against the accused-respondent for the offences under Section 323, 341 & 354 of IPC. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-respondent for the offences under Section 323, 341, 504/34 of IPC and thereafter, charges were framed against them for the same offences. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. But on the subsequent occasion, the accused confessed their crime. Hence, benefit of Sections 4 & 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 was extended to them and they were directed to deposit the fine of Rs.1,000/- as Prosecution expenses. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the accusedrespondents submitted an appeal before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge which was partly allowed and the accusedrespondent were directed to pay compensation of Rs.16,000/- to the injured petitioner.

¶21

Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgments, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing of petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that looking to the incident and nature of allegation levelled against the accusedrespondents, they must be sentenced for the offences committed by them and they are not entitled to get the benefit of probation under Sections 4 & 5 of the Probation of Offencers Act. Hence, both these orders be quashed and set aside and appropriate sentence be awarded to the accused-respondents.

¶22

Heard and considered the submissions made at bar and perused the material available on the record.

[2024:RJ-JP:23007]

[CRLR-94/2019]

(3 of 3)

Looking to the nature of allegations and looking to the fact that the charges were framed against the accused-respondent under Sections 341, 323 & 504/34 of IPC, the benefit of Sections 4 & 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 was granted to them by the learned trial Judge, while passing the order dated 05.09.2018. Since, no compensation was awarded to the injured complainant, that is why the Appellate Court has rightly enhanced the fine & granted her suitable amount of compensation of Rs. 16,000/-. The order passed by the appellate Court requires no interference. This Court finds no error in the findings recorded by the Appellate Court either legally or factually requiring any interference.

¶27

In this background, the instant petition deserves to be rejected and hereby dismissed being devoid of merits.

¶28

All applications pending if any stands disposed off.

¶29

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶30

Keshav/76

Babli Devi W/O Pawan Kumar B/C Dhanka v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babli Devi W/O Pawan Kumar B/C Dhanka v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

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

Babu Lal Mali Vs Smt Gulab Devi and Anr.

Rajendra Kumar S/O Shri Bhanwarlal Vs Gita Bai W/O Shri Rajendra Kumar

Kailash Singh Son of Shri Shankar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Radhey Shyam Vs State

Badrinarayan Gehlot S/O Lt. Shri Bhanu Ram B/C Mali Vs State of Rajasthan

Raju Vs State