2013 Supreme(Raj) 1482
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.
Lal Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1989.
Decided On : 9-07-2013
Advocates:
For the Appellant:Deepak Soni, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Pradeep Shrimal, Public Prosecutor.
The main legal point established is the court's discretion to allow release on probation under Section 360 Cr.P.C. and Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act based on the circumstances of the accused.
Headnote:
Probation - Section 325 I.P.C. - The court allowed the accused appellant to be released on probation under Section 360 Cr.P.C. and Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act due to the age of the accused and the lengthy trial and appeal period.
Fact of the Case:
The accused appellant was convicted under Section 325 I.P.C. and sentenced to one year R.I. and a fine. The appellant requested release on probation due to the occurrence taking place 26 years ago and his family background.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the accused appellant to be released on probation, maintaining the conviction but setting aside the imprisonment sentence, on the grounds of the appellant's age, family background, and the lengthy trial and appeal period.
Issues: The issues involved the request for release on probation based on the length of time since the occurrence and the appellant's family background.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the age of the accused, the lengthy trial and appeal period, and the family background in allowing the release on probation.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, maintaining the conviction but setting aside the imprisonment sentence, and directing the accused to execute a personal bond for release on probation.
JUDGMENT
1. - The accused appellant Lal Singh has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 16.12.1988 of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 41/1987 whereby he has been convicted under Section 325 I.P.C. to suffer sentence of one year R.I. and fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer three months R.I.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 325 I.P.C. but he has only requested that the occurrence took place on 15.2.1987 which is 26 years ago and the accused appellant is having family and he belongs to a respectable family, hence, he should be released on probation.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the same.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. It is an admitted fact that the accused appellant faced the trial and appeal period almost 26 years and he belongs to a respectable family and having his family and children. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the age of the accused appellant and already faced the trial and appeal period for the last 26 years, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met in case the accused appellant is given the benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C. and Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 325 I.P.C. is maintained, but sentence of imprisonment awarded against him is set aside and it is hereby directed that if he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court with stipulation to appear and receive sentence when called upon to do so within a period of one year and in the meanwhile to keep peace and be of good behaviour, the accused should be released. The bonds should be furnished within two months, failing which the trial Court shall take steps that the accused is called upon to undergo the sentence awarded.Appeal patly allowed.
*******
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
