Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1378 (RAJ)

Devi Singh v. State

2015-07-22

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 17.8.1994 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bayana in sessions Case No. 25/1993 whereby he has convicted the appellant under Section 325 IPC and sentenced to 03 year RI and fine of Rs. 500/- and to further undergo two months RI on non-payment of fine. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that an FIR No. 42/1992 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 379, 452 IPC was registered at P.S. Weir, District Bharatpur. After usual investigation, police filed charge-sheet against the appellant before the Magistrate, who thereafter framed charges under Section 307 and 323 IPC, to which he denied and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as mangy as 08 witnesses and got certain documents exhibited. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court vide order dated 17.8.1994 has acquitted the appellant from the offence under Section 307 IPC, but convicted and sentenced the appellant, as indicated above. 3. Against the said judgment dated 17.8.1994, this appeal has been preferred by the accused appellants. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that without going into the merits of the case, he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the court below, but he is only requesting to this court that the occurrence took place on 26.2.1992 i.e. about 23 years ago, the appellant is facing trial since then, he is an old person having the children of marriageable age, he is not the habitual offender, it is his first offence of his life, he is not previously convict, hence he should be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, and benefit of Section 12 of the Act should also be given to him as he is Government employee working in Electricity Department, so that the impugned judgment will not affect their future in any way. 5. 5. He has drawn the attention of this court on the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commandan 20 Bn Itb Police vs. Sanjay Binjola, 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 Section 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 trial court is just and proper. Hence there is no need to interfere with the impugned judgment. 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 appellant is released on probation u/Sec. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and benefit of Section 12 of the Act is also extended to him. Hence, this appeal is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The conviction of the appellant 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 Section 4 of the Act for a period of one year, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. (ii) The conviction of the appellant 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 Section 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 appellant is extended the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, so that the impugned judgment will not affect his future in any way. (iv) The accused appellant 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 appellant within a period of three months from today, failing which the trial court shall take steps that the accused appellant 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.