Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 76 (RAJ)

Shanker v. State of Rajasthan

2005-01-10

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-Notice was issued to the non-petitioner. Mr. N. Moolchandani, learned Public Prosecutor appears for the respondent-State. Respondent No. 2 Dalla has expired on 26.2001. His death certificate along with notice has been furnished. 2. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the revision petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage. 3. Accused-petitioner was tried for the offences under sections 341, 323, 325 IPC. By Judgment and order dated12.2003 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track), Udaipur (for short the trial Court) on appreciation of the evidence produced by the parties, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has established the case against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 325 IPC and accordingly, he was convicted for the said offence and sentenced to undergo one years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment to further undergo 7 days simple imprisonment. The order passed by the trial Court dated 12.2003 was challenged by the petitioner before the Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Udaipur (for short the appellate Court). The appellate Court by the Judgment and order dated 28.6.2003, partly allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner. While maintaining the conviction for the offence under section 325 IPC instead of sentencing the petitioner at once to any imprisonment, he was granted benefit of section 4 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short the Act) and was directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/-with one surety of like amount for maintaining peace, tranquility and be of good behaviour for a period of 2 years. However, under Section 5 of the Act, the appellate Court awarded compensation of Rs. 3000/-in favour of injured non-petitioner No.2 Dalla since deceased. The petitioner neither filed personal bond and the surety bond as directed by the appellate Court nor paid compensation and surrendered before the trial Court on 17.2004 and stated that he is neither in a position to pay the compensation nor anyone is prepared to stand surety for him and, therefore, the trial Court committed the petitioner to jail to undergo the sentence awarded by it. 4. The petitioner has filed the instant revision petition against the Judgment and orders of the trial Court as well as of the appellate Court. 4. The petitioner has filed the instant revision petition against the Judgment and orders of the trial Court as well as of the appellate Court. At the outset, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner did not challenge his conviction, however, he submits that petitioner is an illiterate rustic villager having no means of earning and that is the reason that neither anybody stood surety for him nor he himself is in a position to pay the compensation awarded by the appellate Court. Therefore, he confined his challenge on the quantum of sentence. It is contended that it was the first offence of the petitioner and he has not previously been convicted in any other case. Not only this, there had never been any case against him except the present one. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the appellate Court has already taken a lenient view by extending the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and therefore, no interference is called for. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner is a poor person having no source of earning and that is why no one stood surety for him and he is having no adverse antecedent. On the contrary, from the record, it appears that it was the first offence of the petitioner alleged to have been committed by him and he has never been prosecuted prior to this. Keeping in view the pecuniary facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. By now, the petitioner has already undergone sentence for about six months, more so, he was granted the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. 6. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. The conviction of the petitioner for the offence under section 325 IPC is maintained. However, the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The petitioner is in jail and he be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.