[2026:RJ-JD:2578]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 44/2025 Narender Singh S/o Shri Kashmir Singh, Aged About 68 Years, R/o 18 B.b. Tehsil Padampur, Dist. Sriganganagar,raj.

----Appellant Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Jagdish S/o Shri Bhagirath, R/o 2 T.k. P.s. Muklawa, Tehsil Raisinghnagar, Dist. Sriganganagar,raj.

----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Hans Raj For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Judgment

14/01/2026

1. The present appeal has been instituted by the appellant– complainant invoking Section 372 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 372 of the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure), assailing the judgment and order dated 01.10.2024 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Srikaranpur, District Sri Ganganagar, in Criminal Regular Appeal No. 01/2018 titled Jagdish vs. Narender Singh & Anr. By the impugned judgment, the appellate court partly allowed the appeal preferred by Respondent No.2–accused Jagdish, whereby the conviction recorded against him for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code was affirmed, but the sentence imposed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate vide judgment dated 05.12.2017 was set aside, and the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act was extended to the accused.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the niceties of the matter.

3. The scope of the present appeal is narrowly circumscribed, being confined solely to the challenge against that part of the appellate judgment whereby the substantive sentence was interfered with and the accused was granted the benefit of probation, which, according to the appellant, is illegal, unjust, and contrary to settled principles of law.

3.1. A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the appellate court undertook a comprehensive reappreciation of the entire evidence available on record. Upon such re-evaluation, the findings of guilt returned by the trial court were found to be well- founded and were accordingly affirmed. However, while dealing with the question of sentence, the appellate court consciously exercised its discretion by taking into consideration multiple mitigating factors, including the quantum of sentence awarded by the trial court, the period of incarceration already undergone by the accused during the pendency of the trial, the absence of any prior criminal antecedents, the fact that the offence in question was the first offence committed by the accused, and the overall conspectus of facts and circumstances emerging from the record. On an objective assessment of these factors, the appellate court found the case to be a fit one for extending the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, thereby substituting the sentence of imprisonment with an order of release on probation. To balance the equities, the appellate court further imposed costs of ₹20,000/- upon the accused-respondent towards the costs of proceedings.

3.2. The appellant–complainant has expressed grievance only with respect to the modification of sentence and the grant of probation. However, upon an anxious consideration of the submissions and the material on record, this Court finds that no specific pleading, cogent argument, or legal infirmity has been pointed out which would demonstrate that the appellate court acted perversely, arbitrarily, or in excess of jurisdiction while extending the benefit of probation to the accused. The impugned exercise of discretion does not suffer from any manifest illegality or impropriety warranting interference.

3.3. It is trite law that sentencing is not a mechanical exercise but a matter of judicial discretion, to be exercised judiciously and in accordance with well-recognized principles, keeping in view the nature of the offence, the manner of its commission, the antecedents and character of the offender,