Back
MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Shivji Ram S/o Mohanram – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.
1. No one appeared on behalf of the petitioners even in the second round. On the last occasion also i.e. on 15.05.2024, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioners. In these circumstances, this Court appoints Mr. Pallav Sharma, Adv. as amicus curiae in this case to represent the case of the petitioners before this Court. His remuneration shall be paid by the Rajasthan State Legal Service Authorities as per rules.
2. The matter is being finally heard and decided today.
3. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 22.09.2004, passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases and Additional Sessions Judge, Merta in Cr. Appeal No. 22/04 (Old No. 32/2002) whereby the learned appellate court partly allowed the appeal of the accused-respondent Nos. 2 to 9 and while affirming the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate, (First Class), Degana, District Nagaur, dated 11.09.2002 passed in Cr. Case No. 203/1999 to the extent of conviction for offences under Sections 148, 341, 324/149, 323/149 IPC, set aside the sentence and instead gave benefit of probation to the accused-respondent Nos. 2 to 9 und
The appellate court's decision to grant probation to convicted offenders was upheld as just and proper, despite the petitioners' claims of sufficient evidence against them.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt for conviction, and the courts below correctly applied the law in granting probation under the Probation of Offenders Act.
The appellate court upheld the conviction under IPC but granted probation, emphasizing the absence of criminal history and the protracted trial as mitigating factors.
The court emphasized that acquittal judgments should not be interfered with unless they are palpably erroneous or contrary to evidence, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.
The appellate court's decision to grant probation was upheld, emphasizing the consideration of the offenders' circumstances and the nature of the offence in sentencing.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; acquittals should not be interfered with unless compelling reasons exist.
The court upheld the conviction of the accused while reducing the sentence for two petitioners to the period already served, affirming the adequacy of the original sentences.
The prosecution failed to prove the charges under the SC/ST Act, justifying the acquittal, while the trial court's decision to grant probation for IPC convictions was upheld.
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
