Table of Content
1. overview of case facts and charges. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court's examination of case details. (Para 3)
3. court's consideration of probation and offender profile. (Para 4 , 5)
4. court's final decision on sentence modification. (Para 6)
5. administrative closure of case. (Para 7 , 8)

Order

17/07/2025

1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20.06.2025 passed in Sessions Case No.318/2023 by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Udaipur whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:-

Name of the accused	Offence for which convicted	Substantive sentence	Fine and default sentence
Jaideep & Nilesh	Section 341/34 IPC	One month’s SI	Fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo further seven days’ SI
	Section 323/34 IPC	One year’s SI	Fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo further fifteen days’ SI

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. hey were, however, acquitted of the graver charge under Section 308/34 IPC . Consequently, the present appeal is confined to the legality and propriety of the sentence imposed pursuant to the said conviction.

2. The factual substratum of the prosecution’s case originates from a written report lodged by the complainant, Lalit Meena (PW- 1), on 16.09.2022. In his complaint, the informant alleged that he was residing in a rented premises at Tekari, Udaipur, and on the aforesaid date, at approximately 5:45 PM, received a phone call from one Jaideep, who expressed a desire to meet him and asked him to come to the Reti Stand. Due to professional obligations, the complainant could not comply with the request.

2.1. Subsequently, at around 7:00 to 7:15 PM, while the complainant was commuting within the city for work-related purposes along with his friend Naresh Meena on a motorcycle, they were intercepted near the Central Jail by the appellants— Jaideep and Nilesh—riding another motorcycle. It was alleged that the appellants restrained the complainant and subjected him to physical assault, wherein Jaideep, with alleged intent to inflict grievous injury, delivered a knife blow to the complainant’s head.

Following the assault, the accused fled the scene.

2.2. Based on the said complaint, an FIR bearing No. 367/2022 was registered for offences under Sections 341, 323, 307, and 34 IPC . Upon completion of investigation, the appellants were apprehended and a charge-sheet was laid before the competent court.

2.3. The learned Trial Court framed charges against the appellants, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In the course of the trial, the prosecution examined ten witnesses and exhibited thirty documents marked as Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/30. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, asserting false implication. In defence, they produced documentary evidence, Ex. D/1 and Ex. D/2.

2.4. Upon conclusion of the trial, and after hearing final arguments, the learned Trial Court proceeded to convict the appellants for the offences under Sections 341/34 and 323/34 IPC and sentenced them accordingly. The present appeal impugns only the sentence awarded, as the conviction itself has not been seriously disputed.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor. The record has been meticulously examined.

4. It is pertinent to note that the appellants stand acquitted of the offence under Section 308/34 IPC . The conviction pertains only to minor offences, the maximum sentence for which does not exceed one year. Significantly, there is no material on record suggesting that the appellants possess antecedents or are habitual offenders. Despite this, the learned Trial Court did not advert to the possibility of granting probation either under Section 360 Cr.P.C. or under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 . Further, Section 361 Cr.P.C. mandates the recording of special reasons when the benefit of probation is declined, which has not been complied with in the impugned

Click Here to Read the rest of this document