Back
2017 Supreme(Raj) 763
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Vijay Bishnoi, J.
Rajendra Kumar Seni S/o Omkar Ji – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan and Others – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 822 of 2009
Decided On : 23-02-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. P.N. Mohanani.
For the Respondents: Mr. V.S. Rajpurohit, Mr. M.K. Garg and Mr. Kaushal Gautam.
The court has a duty to apply its mind to the question of awarding compensation to the victim in every criminal case and record reasons for awarding/refusing compensation.
Headnote:
PROBATION - GRANT OF - COMPENSATION TO VICTIM - SECTION 357 CR.P.C. - COURT'S DUTY TO APPLY MIND - AWARD OF COMPENSATION - FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED - SECTION 357-A CR.P.C. - INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE - JUST COMPENSATION TO VICTIM - DETERMINATION - FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED - SECTION 357(3) CR.P.C. - DEFAULT IN PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION - SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT - IMPOSITION - JUSTIFICATION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the judgments passed by the courts below granting probation to the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 7 convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 447, 323/149 and 325/149 IPC. Petitioner also contended that the courts below failed to order just compensation to him.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the judgments passed by the courts below regarding probation to the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 is not liable to be interfered with, however, the petitioner is liable to be compensated suitably by the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 7.
Issues: 1. Whether the grant of probation to the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 7 was justified? 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to just compensation? 3. Whether the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 7 could be sentenced to imprisonment in default of payment of compensation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the grant of probation to the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 7 was justified considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the date of incident and the fact that the probation period has already been completed and the sureties have been discharged. 2. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to just compensation considering the nature of injuries suffered by him and the fact that he has not been sufficiently compensated by the courts below. 3. The court held that the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 7 could be sentenced to imprisonment in default of payment of compensation as the provision of Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. empowers the court to do so.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition in part. The judgments passed by the courts below were confirmed to the extent of convicting the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 7 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 447, 323/149 and 325/149 IPC and releasing them on probation, however, the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 7 were directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- each to the petitioner in addition to the litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/- each awarded by the trial court.
1. This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioner being aggrieved with the judgment dated 23.9.2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jalore (hereinafter referred to as the revisional-appellate court), whereby the Criminal Revision Petition No. 2/2007 filed on behalf of the petitioner and Criminal Appeal Nos. 13/2006 and 18/2006 filed on behalf of accused respondent Nos. 2 to 7 have been dismissed.
2. The said criminal revision petition was filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 9.3.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore (hereinafter referred to as the trial court) in Criminal Original Case No. 334/1997, whereby the trial court while convicting the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 7 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 447, 323/149 and 325/149 IPC released them on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act. The trial court has further directed the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 to deposit Rs. 1,000/- each as litigation cost and ordered that the same may be paid to the petitioner after expiry of limitation of filing appeal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 27.8.1997, the petitioner lodged an FIR against the accused persons while alleging that he purchased a plot No. 57 situated at Sanjay Nagar Colony, Jalore from one Sunil Kumar in the year 1994 in the name of his sister-in-law Kamla. It is claimed that since 1994 he was in possession of the said plot and raised boundary of it and also put a wooden gate on it. It is alleged that on the date of incident, when he went to see the said plot, then, suddenly Prithvi Singh, Surendra Singh, Anand Singh, Kanku, Umed Kumar, Ram Dutt, Prathvi Raj Mewara and his wife came there in a jeep and abused him. Thereafter, the accused persons entered into the said plot and gave severe beatings to him. It is alleged by the complainant that Prithvi Singh inflicted injury by iron rod on his nose and when he raised alarm, Chagan Das and Harish Kumar came there and rescued him from the accused persons.
4. The police after registering the FIR started investigation and after conclusion of the investigation has filed charge-sheet against the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 7 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 447, 325, 325/149 IPC. Later on, the trial court has framed charges against the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 7 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 447, 323, 325, 323/149 and 325/149 IPC. After conclusion of the trial, the trial court vide judgment dated 9.3.2006 convicted the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 7 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 447, 323/149, 325/149 IPC, however, released them on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act and directed them to pay litigation cost to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 1,000/- each.
5. Being aggrieved with the judgment dated 9.3.2006 passed by the trial court, the petitioner has preferred criminal revision petition No. 2/2007 and the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 7 have preferred appeals before the revisional/appellate court. The revision petition filed by the petitioner and the appeals filed by the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 7 have been dismissed by the revisional/appellate court vide judgment dated 23.9.2008 with a minor modification that the conviction of appellant Prathvi Raj will not adversely affect his service.
6. Being aggrieved with the judgment dated 23.9.2008 passed by the revisional-appellate court in criminal revision petition, the petitioner has preferred this Criminal Misc. Petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the courts below have grossly erred in granting probation to the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 7 because the facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant grant of probation to them. It is also contended that it is settled law that probation cannot be granted to any accused under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act
