HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 179/1994

Sahi Ram And Ors

----Appellant

Versus

State

----Respondent

For Appellant(s)

:

Mr. Om Rajpurohit

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Gaurav Singh PP

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

04/04/2022

1.

In the wake of instant surge in COVID – 19 cases and spread

of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being

maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety

of all concerned.

2.

This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been

preferred against the judgment dated 05.04.1994 passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu, Camp Rajgarh in

Sessions Case No.138/92, whereby appellant No.1 Sahi Ram was

convicted under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo four

years’ rigorous imprisonment, alongwith fine of Rs. 5000/-, in

default of payment of fine to undergo further four months’

rigorous imprisonment. However, appellant No.2-Lal Chand and

appellant No.3-Mohar Singh, who were convicted for the offence

under Section 3 IPC, were extended the benefit of Section 4(1) of

the Probation of Offenders Act, on due admonition.

(2 of 3)

[CRLA-179/1994]

3.

Vide order dated 03.02.2022, this Court dismissed the

present appeal qua accused-appellant No.1-Sahi Ram and

accused-appellant No.2-Lal Chand, as having abated, on the

ground that as per the requisite report, they had already expired.

3.

Learned counsel for accused-appellant Mohar Singh submits

that the learned trial court, without due appreciation of the

evidence placed before it, held the appellant-Mohar Singh liable

for the offence under Section 323 IPC, while extending him the

benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, on due admonition.

Learned counsel also submits that there are no previous criminal

antecedents against appellant-Mohar Singh, as recorded in the

impugned order itself. Thus, as per learned counsel, the said

appellant No.3 is entitled to be extended the benefit of doubt, and

the consequential acquittal from the charges levelled against him.

4.

Learned Public Prosecutor, however, while opposing the

appeal submits that looking to the role attributed to accused-

appellant Mohar Singh in the crime in question, the learned trial

court had already extended him the benefit of Probation of

Offenders Act, and thus, he is not entitled for any further

indulgence by this Court.

5.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as

perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that the learned

trial court vide the impugned order, while convicting deceased

appellant-Sahi Ram, as above, granted the benefit of Probation of

Offenders Act to deceased appellant No.2-Lal Chand and surviving

appellant No.3-Mohar Singh, on due admonition.

6.

On a consideration of the overall facts and circumstances of

the case, this Court does not find any reason so as to grant any

further indulgence to the appellant No.3-Mohar Singh, in view of

(3 of 3)

[CRLA-179/1994]

the indulgence already granted to him by the learned trial court,

while passing the impugned order.

7.

In view of the above, no case for interference is made out.

8.

Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. All pending

applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below

be sent back forthwith.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

47-SKant/-