Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 473 (RAJ)

Nemi Chand v. State of Rajasthan

2001-03-22

SHASHI KANT SHARMA

body2001
JUDGMENT 1. - This revision is directed against the judgment dated 19.8.1999, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sikar, by which the appeal filed by the accused petitioners was dismissed. 2. Brief facts relating to this Criminal Revision are that a case was registered by Police against the revisionists Nemi Chand and Murari Lal with the allegations that on 13th October 1995, complainant Hansraj was kidnapped and was beaten by them and challan was filed against these revisionists for offence under Sections 365, 323 IPC. Charges were framed against these accused persons. Prosecution produced as many as six witnesses. Accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. After hearing the arguments, trial court convicted these accused persons for offence under Sections 342 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC and acquitted them for the offence under Section 34 IPC and acquitted them for the offence under Section 365. The trial court fined these accused persons for Rs. 500/- each for the offence under Section 342 and Rs. 500/- for offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. Against that judgment, appeal was filed, which was dismissed by the impugned order, hence this Criminal Revision. 3. It is argued on behalf of accused petitioners that the judgments passed by both the courts below are wrong Both the Courts below have wrongly appreciated the evidence of prosecution. The evidence produced by prosecution was not reliable. The judgments passed by both the court below should be quashed and set-aside and they should be acquitted. In the alternative, it is argued that these accused persons nave been convicted for offence under Sections 342 and 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC arid the maximum punishment for these offences is imprisonment for one year. It is further argued that both the Courts below have not given benefit of probation to these accused persons while under Sections 360 and 361 Cr.PC., it was proper for the courts below to give them such benefit. It is further argued that instant case is old one and these accused persons are facing trial since long. It is prayed that benefit of probation should be given to them. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that these accused petitioners have been convicted by the trial court as well as by the appellate court. There is concurrent finding of fact on this point. It is prayed that benefit of probation should be given to them. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that these accused petitioners have been convicted by the trial court as well as by the appellate court. There is concurrent finding of fact on this point. This Criminal Revision is against the concurrent finding of both the Courts below. Jurisdiction of Criminal Revision is limited and High Court is not supposed to re-appreciate the evidence as the evidence has been appreciated by the two courts below. So far as probation is concerned, it is argued that he agrees that the maximum punishment for the offence for which the accused persons are convicted is one year. It is argued that it is for the court to decide whether under these circumstances, benefit should be given to the accused persons or not. 5. I have gone through the arguments of both the parties and examined the judgment of the courts below. These accused persons were convicted by the trial court for the offence under Sections 342 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC. They filed appeal, which was also dismissed. Both the courts below have held that these accused persons are liable for the offence under Section 342 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC. I am of the view that this criminal revision is filed against the judgment of conviction. Scope of this court in criminal revisions in very limited. This court should not interfere in such cases, unless there is some illegality or perversity in the judgment of the lower court. In my view, there is an ample evidence against these two petitioners. I am of the view that conviction is well-founded and so far as the conviction is concerned, it need not be interfered with. 6. So far as giving the benefit of probation is concerned, Sections 360 and 361 Cr. PC. are relevant Ordinarily in such cases, trial court should give benefit of probation to Offenders Act. I do not see any reason for which benefit of probation be denied to these accused persons. I am of the view that benefit of section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act should be given to these accused persons. 7. In the result, the revision is partly allowed. So far as the conviction of these accused persons is concerned, it is upheld. 8. I am of the view that benefit of section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act should be given to these accused persons. 7. In the result, the revision is partly allowed. So far as the conviction of these accused persons is concerned, it is upheld. 8. So far as sentence of fine is concerned, it is set-aside. Both the accused persons are entitled for the benefit of probation under section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act arid instead of sentence of fine, it is ordered that in case both these accused petitioners i.e. Nemi Chand and Murari Lal, in the present matter enter into a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- each with one surety of like amount to appear and receive sentence so imposed on them when called upon by the trial court during the period of one year from the date of their execution of bond and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour, they shall be released on probation of good conduct and shall not be required to undergo any sentence thereunder. *******