Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Salim Khan – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.)
Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against judgment and order dated 26.07.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, in Cr. Appeal No.10/2020 whereby, the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and order dated 18.12.2019, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arnod, District Pratapgarh, in Cr. Case No.24/2014 (5255/2014), whereby the learned trial court while convicting the petitioners for offences under Sections 148, 341, 323/149 IPC, gave benefit of Probation under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioners.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up is that an FIR No.278/2013 was lodged at PS Anord by the complainants with the allegations that the accused-petitioners assaulted them. After thorough investigation, Police filed charge-sheet under Sections 148, 341, 323, 324/149 IPC. Thereafter, the trial court framed charges against the accused petitioners, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited certain documents. Thereafter, stat
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 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 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 court upheld the benefit of probation based on the nature of injuries and the absence of other criminal antecedents, finding no illegality or perversity in the lower courts' judgments.
The court may reduce a sentence to the time already served when considering the circumstances of the case and the mental trauma endured during protracted trials.
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 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.
First-time offenders should be considered for probation during sentencing, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment.
The court emphasized the high threshold for interfering with acquittal judgments, requiring compelling reasons to overturn a lower court's decision.
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
