2014 Supreme(Raj) 683
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.
Duli Chand - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 768, 681 of 2004 and 404 of 2005.
Decided On : 2-01-2014
For the Duli Chand in Revision Petition No. 768/2004:PRS Rajawat, Advocate.
For the Revision Petition No. 681/2004:Rajneesh Gupta and Bhanwar Singh, Advocate.
For the Appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 404/2005:Udam Singh, Advocates.
For the State: Peeyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor.
The court has the discretion to extend the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act to accused appellants based on their education and age, in addition to the benefit of Section 4 and 5.
Headnote:
Revision Petitions - Criminal Law - The court dismissed the revision petitions filed by the complainants and partly allowed the appeal filed by the accused appellants, extending the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act in addition to the benefit of Section 4 and 5, to ensure the impugned judgment would not affect their future.
Fact of the Case:
The police filed challan before the Court concerned based on FIRs, and the trial court acquitted some accused and convicted others. The complainants filed revision petitions, while the accused filed an appeal seeking the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the revision petitions filed by the complainants and partly allowed the appeal filed by the accused appellants, extending the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act in addition to the benefit of Section 4 and 5, to ensure the impugned judgment would not affect their future.
Issues: Revision petitions and appeal related to the acquittal and conviction of the accused in a criminal case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court extended the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the accused appellants, considering their education and age, to ensure their future would not be affected by the impugned judgment.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petitions and partly allowed the appeal, extending the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the accused appellants.
JUDGMENT
1. - Since both the aforesaid two revision petitions and one appeal relate to one incident, hence the arguments have been heard together and they are being decided by this common order.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
"On 28.12.2002, complainant Duli Chand also lodged FIR No. 115/2002. On the same very day, complainant Bhanwar Singh lodged cross FIR No. 2/2003 at Police Station, Ayana.
3. On the basis of aforesaid FIRs, the police started the investigation and after completion of investigation, the police filed challan before the Court concerned. The matter was committed to the Sessions Court, Kota, which was transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Kota. The learned trial Court framed charges against the accused persons, who denied for the same and claimed for trial. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court has passed the judgment in the case of complainant Duli Chand (Cr. Case No. 39/2004) , acquitting the accused Mooli Lal, Jodhraj and Bhanwar Singh from all the charges levelled against them; convicted the accused persons Udham Singh and Danmal for the offence under Sections 324 IPC, but acquitted them for the offence under Sections 148, 308, 325, 323 read with Section 149 IPC and convicted the accused Surajmal and Okendra for the offence under Section 323 IPC, but acquitted them for the offence under Sections 148, 308, 325, 324 readwith Section 149 IPC, but instead of sentencing the accused persons granted them benefit of Section 4 and 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
4. In the case of complainant Bhanwar Singh (Cr. Appeal No. 40/2004) , acquitted the accused Duli Chand for the offence under Sections 307, 307/34 IPC and Section 3/25 of Arms Act and also acquitted the accused Bheem Singh for the offence under Sections 307, 307/34 IPC.
5. Against the said orders of acquittal, Cr. Revision Petition No. 768/2004 has been filed by the complainant Duli Chand, while Cr. Revision Petition No. 681/2004 has been filed by the complainant Bhanwar Singh and Cr. Appeal No. 404/2005 has been filed by the accused Udam Singh and others.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the impugned judgments passed by the Court below.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, I do not find any force in the revision petitions filed by both the complainants i.e. Duli Chand and Bhanwar Singh and hence the same being bereft of any merit deserve to be dismissed.
8. So far as appeal No. 404/2005 is concerned, without going into the merits of the case, Mr. Rajnish Gupta, learned counsel has contended that already the benefit of Sections 4 and 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act has been given to the accused appellants Udam Singh and Others by the Court below. He has only requested to this Court that benefit of Section 12 of Probation of Offenders' Act should also be extended in favour of the appellants Udam Singh and Others because they are the educated persons and some of them are young persons, so that the impugned judgment will not affect their future in any way.
9. Learned P.P. for the State as also the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the same.
10. The prayer of the counsel for the appellants seems to be genuine, hence the appeal filed by the appellants deserves to be partly allowed.
11. In view of above, both the Cr. Revision Petitions filed by the complainants being bereft of any merit, are hereby stand dismissed.
12. The appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed and the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act is also extended to the accused appellants in addition to the benefit of Section 4 and 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, so that the impugned judgment shall not affect their future in any way. Rest of the terms under the impugned judgment shall remain unchanged.
13. The impugned judgment is modified, as indicated herein-above.
*******
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
