Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2276 (RAJ)

Mohan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2005-08-29

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to accept notice. He has accepted the notice. With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard and decided. The record of the trial Court was requisitioned by the order dated 04.08.2005 and the same has been received. 2. By the instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 CrPC, the accused-petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.06.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh (for short, “the Appellate Court” hereinafter) in Criminal Appeal No. 24/2004, whereby the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner against his conviction and sentence awarded by the Judicial Magistrate, Anoopgarh (for Short, “the trial Court” hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 87/2002 vide Judgment and order dated 27.04.2004, was dismissed and the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 324 IPC and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-in default of payment of fine further to undergo one months imprisonment have been affirmed. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the Judgment s and orders of the appellate Court as well as of the trial Court. I have also carefully gone through the record of the trial Court. 4. At the very out set, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as there are concurrent findings of facts by the Courts below holding the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 324 IPC, therefore, the petitioner does not want to challenge his conviction and confines his arguments only to the extent that both the Court below fell in error in not extending the benefit of probation to the accused-petitioner under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 or Section 360 CrPC. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that the petitioner has adequately been punished for the offence under Section 324 IPC and the impugned Judgment s and orders of the Courts below call for no interference. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. 7. PW . 4 Sahib Ram alleged to have suffered four injuries at the hands of the accused-petitioner. The injuries are on the left and right hands. The injuries are simple in nature caused by sharp-edged weapon. From the facts emerging from the record, it appears that the petitioner owed some amount to injured PW . 7. PW . 4 Sahib Ram alleged to have suffered four injuries at the hands of the accused-petitioner. The injuries are on the left and right hands. The injuries are simple in nature caused by sharp-edged weapon. From the facts emerging from the record, it appears that the petitioner owed some amount to injured PW . 1 Sahib Ram and he had been making demand for the same yet the injured PW . 1 Sahib Ram failed to return the amount and that gave cause to the sudden occurrence. The occurrence took place at the spur of moment. The petitioner has been facing protracted trial since January, 2002 and thereafter, the appeal and revision and has also incurred substantial expenses in defending the case. On perusal of the Judgment s and orders of the trial Court and the appellate Court, it appears that both the Courts below have not taken note of Sections 360 and 361 CrPC. From the perusal of the Judgment s and orders of the Courts below, it appears that both the Courts below have not assigned the reasons for not dealing with the petitioner as per the provisions envisaged under Section 360 CrPC. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the ends of justice would be met if instead of sentencing the petitioner at once to any imprisonment, the benefit of Section 4 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is extended to him. The petitioner has already undergone the imprisonment for more than two months. 8. Consequently, the revision petition filed by the petitioner against his conviction for the offence under Section 324 IPC is dismissed. However, instead of sentencing the petitioner at once to any imprisonment, he is granted the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Petitioner is in jail and it is directed that he be released on probation of good conduct provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court to the effect that he 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. Since, the revision petition itself has been dismissed, the application for suspension of sentence stands disposed of .