Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Narpat Singh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 230/1993
Decided On : 12-07-2022
Probation of Offenders Act - Criminal Appeal - Sections 332, 333 IPC - [Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958] - [Sections 332, 333 IPC] - The court discussed the legislative intent of the Probation of Offenders Act and referred to relevant case laws to extend the benefit of the Act to the accused-appellants. The appeal was partly allowed, maintaining the conviction but directing the release of the appellants on probation with certain conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal pertains to a case where the accused-appellants were acquitted for the offence under Section 397 IPC but convicted for the offence under Sections 332 and 333 IPC. The appellants sought the benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Finding of the Court:
The court observed that the accused-appellants had no criminal antecedents and were entitled to the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The appeal was partly allowed, maintaining the conviction but directing the release of the appellants on probation with certain conditions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused-appellants were entitled to the benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the legislative intent of the Act and referred to relevant case laws, including Arvind Mohan Sinha v. Amulya Kumar Biswas, Brij Lal v. State of Rajasthan, Mohd. Hashim v. State of U.P., and Lakhvir Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab and Ors., to support its decision to extend the benefit of the Act to the accused-appellants.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, maintaining the conviction but directing the release of the appellants on probation under Section 4 of the Act, upon their furnishing a personal bond and sureties with certain conditions.
Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the legal document:
Please let me know if you need a detailed analysis or further assistance.
JUDGMENT
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 374 Cr.P.C. praying for the following relief:-
"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the appeal of the appellants may kindly be accepted and the order under appeal may kindly be set aside and the appellants may be acquitted of the charges."
2. The matter pertains to an incident that occurred in the year 1992 and the present appeal has been pending since 1993.
3. Vide impugned judgment dated 07.06.1993 the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 159/1992 and acquitted the accused-appellants for the offence under Section 397 IPC, but convicted them for the offence under Sections 332 and 333 IPC. The appellants were sentenced for the offence made out under Section 332 IPC and were directed to undergo three months' S.I., along with a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment, they were ordered to further undergo one month's S.I. and under Section 333 IPC they were convicted for two years' S.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment, they were to further undergo two months' S.I.
4. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that the accused-appellants do not have any criminal antecedents to their discredit.
5. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants further submits that the sentence awarded to the accused-appellants was suspended by this Hon'ble Court vide the order dated 05.07.1993, passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 230/1993 and thus, they are on bail.
6. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants however, makes a limited prayer that the accused-appellants may be granted benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
"4. Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct.--
(1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding three years, as the court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour: Provided that the court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond.
(2) Before making any order under sub-section (1), the court shall take into consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation to the case.
(3)...
(4)...
(5)... "
7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the appeal and submits that looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the well reasoned speaking order passed by the learned court below, the accused-appellants are not entitled for any indulgence by this Court.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case.
9. In Arvind Mohan Sinha v. Amulya Kumar Biswas (1974) 4 SCC, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
"The Probation of Offenders Act is a reformative measure and its object is to reclaim amateur offenders who, if spared the indignity of incarceration, can be usefully rehabilitated in society.
In recalcitrant cases, punishment has to be deterrent so that others similarly minded may warn themselves of the hazards of taking to a career of crime. But the novice who strays in
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to extend the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, based on the legislative intent of the Act an....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to extend the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, based on the nature of the offences, the c....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the accused-appellant to the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 based on the absence of criminal antecedents and....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the accused-petitioner to the benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, based on the absence of crimin....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and the entitlement of the accused-appellants to the benefit of probation based on the abse....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and the court's discretion to extend the benefit of probation based on the nature of th....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and the court's discretion to decide the expediency of releasing the convicted person on....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
