Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1097 (RAJ)

Shambhu v. State of Rajasthan

2005-04-11

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-By these criminal revision petitions under Section 397/401 CrPC, petitioners have challenged the Judgment dated 26.02.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Chittorgarh (for short, "the Appellate Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Appeal No. 34/2004, by which the appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners and confirmed the Judgment and order dated 28.06.2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh (for short, "the trial Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Regular Case No. 161/2003 convicting the petitioners for the offence under Section 379, IPC and sentencing each of them to simple imprisonment for one year. 2. The facts of the case, in a succinct, are that on 14.05.1999, one Hari Kishan Jat orally informed Police Station, Chanderiya that at about 3:00 AM on that day, when he was putting out the electric motor from the tube-well, he heard the voice of cutting tree, whereupon he, alongwith Gopal and Shyam Lal went to the site and saw three-four persons taking sandal wood after cutting the same, who, on seeing them, started running. Those persons were encircled and caught-hold by the villagers. On this report, the police registered the case under Section 379, IPC and after investigation, filed challan against the petitioners under Section 379 IPC. After hearing the arguments and appreciating the evidence on record, the trial Court, vide Judgment and order dated 28.06.2004, convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the offence under Section 379. Being aggrieved with the Judgment and order dated 28.06.2004 passed by the trial Court, petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate Court which has been dismissed vide impugned Judgment dated 26.02.2005. Hence, these revision petitions. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the impugned Judgment s and orders passed by the Courts below as also the record of the case. 4. At the very out-set, learned Counsel for the petitioners have not challenged the conviction of the petitioners for the offence under Section 379, IPC and confined their argument to the question of granting benefit of probation to the accused-petitioners on the grounds that the petitioners, now aged about 50 years, are poor agriculturists; no previous conviction stands to the credit of the petitioners and the quantum of alleged recovered sandal wood is very small. 5. I have carefully gone through the impugned Judgment s and orders passed by the Courts below. 5. I have carefully gone through the impugned Judgment s and orders passed by the Courts below. There is concurrent findings of both the Courts below, after appreciating, evaluating and scanning the evidence, regarding the guilt of the petitioners and as such, the learned Counsel for the petitioners have rightly not assailed the conviction of the petitioners for the offence under Section 379, IPC. 6. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioners are agriculturists and aged about 50 years, no previous conviction stands to their credit and the alleged recovered sandal wood was in small quantity, they have already undergone the imprisonment for about 1½ months, in my opinion, the ends of justice would be met if instead of sentencing them at once to any punishment, they are released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 7. Consequently, the revision petitions against the conviction are dismissed. However, instead of sentencing the petitioners at once to any punishment of imprisonment, they are granted the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Petitioners are in jail and they be released on probation of good conduct provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-alongwith one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court to the effect that they shall maintain peace and tranquility and be of good behaviour for a period of two years and to appear and receive sentence when called upon to do so during such period. The applications for suspension of sentence stand disposed of .