Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1326 (RAJ)

Kapil v. State

2015-07-17

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2015
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This revision petition has been filed against the impugned judgment & order dated 1.6.2010 passed by learned Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge, Laxmangarh, Distt. Alwar in Cr.appeal No. 7/2010 whereby he has dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of learned Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate, Laxmangarh, Distt. Alwar dated 17.3.2006 passed in Cr. case No. 333/2005 by which accused petitioner has been held guilty for the offence u/Sec. 279 and 337 IPC, and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 250/- and in default to undergo SI of one month for the offence u/Sec. 279 IPC, and to pay fine of Rs. 250/- and in default to undergo SI of one month for the offence u/Sec. 337 IPC. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the complainant Santosh filed a complaint against the accused petitioner stating inter alia that on 28.11.2005 at about 1.00 pm she was going to her house, however in the way near school, a vehicle Motor Cycle Hero Honda Splendar having registration No. RJ-02/10M-9696 came and hit the complainant, as a result of which, complainant sustained serious head injury. After completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner for offence under Sec. 279 and 337 IPC before the concerned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate took the cognizance and framed the charges for the aforesaid offence against the petitioner, to which the petitioner denied and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case, examined certain witnesses and exhibited some documents. Statement of accused petitioner was recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court vide order dated 17.3.2006 imposed the fine upon the petitioner. 3. Against the said judgment dated 17.3.2006., the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Laxmangarh, Distt. Alwar who vide order dated 1.6.2010 dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the trial Court. Hence this revision petition has been filed against the said judgments of both the courts below. 4. 3. Against the said judgment dated 17.3.2006., the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Laxmangarh, Distt. Alwar who vide order dated 1.6.2010 dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the trial Court. Hence this revision petition has been filed against the said judgments of both the courts below. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the occurrence took place in the year 2005 i.e. about 10 years ago, the petitioner is facing trial since then, he has confessed his offence during statement recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. before the trial Court, he is not the habitual offender and offence is related to moral turpitude, therefore, without going into the merits of the case, he is only requesting to this court that looking to his first offence of his life, and since he is not previously convict, hence he should be released under Sec. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, and benefit of Sec. 12 of the Act should also be given to him, so that the impugned judgment will not affect their future in any way. 5. He has drawn the attention of this Court on the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commandant 20 Bn Itb Police vs. Sanjay Binjola reported in 2001(3) SCR 367, the relevant part of which is reproduced as under:- "While allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order we direct that despite confirmation of conviction by the learned Sessions Judge, the respondent be given the benefit of probation of offenders Act. Instead of sentencing him to any punishment, we direct the respondent to be released on his entering into a bond with two sureties, to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during the period of two years and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The respondent shall furnish the bond and the sureties before the Trial Magistrate within a period of two months from today. We further hold respondent entitled to the benefit of Sec. 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act." 6. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the same and contended that the impugned order passed by the courts below are just and proper. Hence there is no need to interfere with the impugned judgements. 7. We further hold respondent entitled to the benefit of Sec. 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act." 6. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the same and contended that the impugned order passed by the courts below are just and proper. Hence there is no need to interfere with the impugned judgements. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 8. Looking to the facts & circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, in my view, ends of justice would be met if the accused petitioner is released on probation u/Sec. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and benefit of Sec. 12 of the Act is also extended to him. Hence, this revision petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) the revision petition is partly allowed; (ii) The conviction of the petitioner is maintained, but he is given the benefit of probation of offenders Act and it is directed that he shall be released on probation under Sec. 4 of the Act for a period of one year, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- (rupees thirty thousand) with one surety of the like amount before the trial court with the stipulation that he will appear before the court concerned and receive the sentence awarded by the trial court as and when he is called upon to do so during the period of one year, and in the meantime, he shall keep peace and be of good behaviour and will not commit any offence during the period of probation. (iii) The accused petitioner is extended the benefit of Sec. 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, so that the impugned judgment will not affect his future in any way. (iv) The accused petitioner is on bail. His bail bonds are canceled and he is directed to furnish fresh bail bonds before the trial court, as mentioned above. (v) The bail bonds shall be furnished by the petitioner within a period of two months from today, failing which the trial Court shall take steps that the accused petitioner is called upon to serve the sentence as awarded to him by the trial Court. (vi) Impugned judgment of the trial Court stands modified, as indicated here-in-above.