Papparam vs State of Rajasthan - 2023 Supreme(Raj) 2143

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Raj) 2143

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Farjand Ali, J.
Papparam - Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 450 of 2023
Decided On : 27-04-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Hardev Ram Bishnoi
For the Respondent: Mr. Mohd. Javed Gauri, P.P.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 341, 323, and 325 - Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Section 4(1) - Conviction and sentence of the petitioner for multiple offences. Appellate court affirmed conviction but granted benefit of probation. There were allegations of falsehood; evidence found unconvincing. Petitioner challenged the judgments. The court found no meritorious ground for interference as there were concurrent findings by both lower courts. (Paras 2-7)

(B) Revision petition - Scope - The revisional court does not entertain issues of facts if there are no legal grounds for interference, and concurrent findings of fact must be maintained. (Paras 6-7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was convicted for multiple offences and received concurrent sentences from lower courts. Following appeal, the appellate court granted probation instead of imprisonment, aggravating the petitioner's challenges based on alleged false allegations and evidentiary contradictions.

Findings of Court:
The court affirmed the concurrent findings of guilt and reiterated that probation granted does not impact the petitioner’s career.

Issues: The primary issues were the validity of the conviction, evidence evaluation, and the appropriateness of the probation benefit.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that unless there is illegality, absurdity, or impropriety, it should not interfere with concurrent findings.

Result: Revision petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. conviction and sentence appeal process. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments on the petitioner's guilt. (Para 4 , 5)
3. court's assessment of concurrent findings. (Para 6 , 7)
4. clarification on probation's impact on service. (Para 8)

ORDER :

Farjand Ali, J.

The petitioner was convicted for the offences under Sections 341 , 323 and 325 IPC by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate No.9, Jodhpur Metro in Criminal Case No.54/2019 and sentenced as under.

Section 3 41	One month's simple imprisonment
Section 323 IPC	Six month's simple imprisonment
Section 325 IPC	One year's simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo simple imprisonment of seven days.

2. Being aggrieved of his conviction and sentence awarded, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.169/2022 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.3, which was decided vide judgement dated 28.03.2023, whereby the learned appellate court while affirming the judgement of conviction, took a lenient view and instead of sending the petitioner to jail, granted him benefit of probation under Section 4 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act. He was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- as cost of proceedings.

3. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid two judgements, the petitioner has preferred the instant revision petition under Section 3 97 /401 IPC.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that false allegations were levelled against the petitioner, who was working as a Shiksha Sahayogi in the school. The FIR was filed on the next day of the alleged incident. Neither any weapon of offence nor the allegedly snatched money and locket have been recovered from the petitioner. There are contradictions in the statement of the complainant. The medical evidence placed on record is also not conclusive in nature. Thus, the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court have committed an error of law in appreciating the evidence brought on record. Thus, it is prayed impugned judgements may be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may be acquitted from the charges.

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that there are concurrent findings of the two courts of competent jurisdiction on the point of guilt of the petitioner, but despite that the appellate court has taken a lenient view and has granted the benefit of probation. Hence, no interference is called for in the impugned judgements.

6. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record.

7. There are concurrent finding of two courts of competent jurisdiction regarding culpability of the accused and despite there being five cases registered against the petitioner, the learned appellate court has extended the benefit of probation in favour of the petitioner. There is no ground, specially legal ground, which may require interference of this court in the case while exercising power under Section 397 /401 CrPC. I find no illegality, perversity of impropriety in impugned judgements passed by the learned courts below. The revision petition is bereft of any merit and hence, the same is dismissed.

8. However, in the facts situation of the case, it is made clear that the benefit of probation given to the petitioner under Section 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act shall not be taken as an impediment in his service career and as such, the same shall not adversely affect his service career.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document