Gujarat High Court
Rabari Lagdhirbhai Govabhai vs State Of Gujarat on 16 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/5/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION)
NO. 5 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI Sd/-
==================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==================================================
RABARI LAGDHIRBHAI GOVABHAI & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==================================================
Appearance:
MS. RIYA A. PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR MC BAROT(144) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
HARDIK SONI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 16/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
[1] The present revision application is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") challenging the order dated 30.12.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Patan in Criminal Appeal No.58 of 2011 which inter alia confirmed the Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 21:27:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/5/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined judgment and order dated 17.10.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chansma in Criminal Case No. 83 of 2007.
[2] The brief facts resulting into filing of the present revision application are that a First Information Report came to be lodged accusing the present revisionists - applicants for offence punishable under Sections 324, 325, 323, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "the IPC"), Sections 183 and 184 of the Gujarat Village Panchayat Act and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. It was the case of the present revisionists - applicants that there was a cross-case and even they were inflicted blows by the complainant and they had filed a separate First Information Report. However, without going on that aspect and pursuant to the filing of First Information Report against the present revisionists - applicants being C.R.No.I-22 of 2007, investigation was carried and charge-sheet came to be filed. Pursuant to the filing of the charge-sheet, charge came to be framed in Criminal Case No.83 of 2007 and on completion of the trial, both the revisionists - Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 21:27:24 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/5/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined applicants were convicted for offence punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 325 of the IPC and Section 183 of the Gujarat Village Panchayat and were sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of one year.
[3] Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the present applicants preferred an appeal under Section 374 of the Code before the learned Appellate Court, being Criminal Appeal No.58 of 2011. The learned Appellate Court by way of impugned order dated 30.12.2017 was pleased to reject the appeal preferred by the present revisionists - applicants and confirmed the order passed by the learned Trial Court, which has led to filing of the present revision application.
[4] Heard Ms. Riya A. Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Tejas M. Barot, learned senior advocate for the revisionists - applicants and Mr. Hardik Soni, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State. Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 21:27:24 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/5/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined [5] At the outset, it has been submitted by Ms. Riya A. Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Tejas M. Barot, learned senior advocate for the revisionists - applicants that the present case pertains to a cross-case. It is submitted that even the complainant was arraigned as an accused in the cross- complaint. However, the complainant came to be released by way of grant of benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). It has been submitted by Ms. Riya A. Patel, learned advocate appearing for the revisionists - applicants that since the present applicants have no criminal antecedents, even they can be granted the benefit of Section 4 of the Act read with Section 360 of the Code. Ms. Riya A. Patel, learned advocate appearing for the revisionists - applicants states that the applicant No.1, namely Rabari Lagdhirbhai Govabhai had passed away on 26.11.2020.
[6] Per contra, Mr. Hardik Soni, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State states at bar on the basis of report submitted by the Police Inspector, Chansma Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 21:27:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/5/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined Police Station that the applicant No.1, namely Rabari Lagdhirbhai Govabhai had passed away on 26.11.2020. He places on record the death certificate and the report of the Police Inspector, Chansma Police Station, which are taken on record. He, therefore, submits that the revision application qua the applicant No.1 has abated. Accordingly, the present revision application stands abated qua applicant No.1. As far as the applicant No.2 is concerned, i.e., Rabari Ghemarbhai Sankabhai, it has been stated by Mr. Soni, learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the role attributed to the applicant No.2 is giving stick blows on hand and leg to the complainant. It has been further stated by Mr. Soni, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the basis of report submitted by the Police Inspector, Chansma Police Station that neither applicant No.1 nor applicant No.2 have any antecedents. In view of the same, it has been submitted by Mr. Soni, learned Additional Public Prosecutor that appropriate orders with regard to the grant of probation may be passed.
[7] Having heard learned advocates appearing for the Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 21:27:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/5/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined respective parties and having gone through the material on record, it is not in dispute that the role attributed to the applicant No.2 is giving stick blows on hand and leg of the complainant. Further, the present case arises out of a cross- complaint, wherein both sides have made allegations of assault by way of stick blows. Further there are no other antecedents of applicant No.2. The complainant, who was arraigned as an accused in the cross-complaint, has been granted the benefit of the Act. This Court finds no reason to deny the benefit of Section 360 of the Code to the present revisionist-applicant No. 2, especially considering that there are no antecedents against him, despite the fact that there is no report by the Probation Officer.
[8] Section 360 of the Code deals with releasing an offender on probation of good conduct or after admonition the Section says that when any person not under 21 years of age is convicted for an offence punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a term of seven years of less or when any person under 21 years of age or any woman is convicted of an Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 21:27:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/5/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined offence not punishable death or imprisonment for life and no previous conviction was proved against the offender, the Court may having regard to the age of the offender, his character and his antecedents as well as the circumstances in which the offence is committed, finds it expedient that the offender should be released on probation of good conduct, the Court may so direct instead of requiring him at once to suffer the punishment. As per sub-section (4) of Section 360 of the Code, these powers can be exercised by the appellate court or by the High Court while exercising powers of revision. Similarly in Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, Section 4 thereof provides that the Court may release certain offenders on probation of good conduct. According to Section 4(1), when any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not publishable with death or imprisonment of life, the Court may release him on probation of good conduct. Sub-section (2) provides that while granting the benefit, the Court shall take into account Report, if any, of the Probation Officer concerned in relation to the case. The underlying object by the provision for releasing the offender on probation of good conduct after his conviction and deal with him Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 21:27:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/5/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined leniently in respect of the sentence, is in tune with the reformative theory of punishment. The object is to provide an opportunity to the offender to reform himself. The courts have held that while sentencing a person, the sentencing court must apply its mind and application of Section 360 of the Code or Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act should be allowed a fair play.
[9] In view of the above, looking to the nature of offence and the duration of offence, it would be in the fitness of things to grant benefit of probation to the applicant No.2. The impugned order of learned Trial Court and learned Appellate Court are not required to be interfered with and they are confirmed. However, looking to the nature of offence and there being no other offence of applicant No.2, he is required to be given the benefit of probation. Therefore, instead of requiring the applicant No.2 to undergo the sentence of imprisonment at once, he is directed to be released on probation of good conduct on execution of bond of Rs.10,000/- for good behaviour for a period of two years. The applicant No.2 shall further furnish Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 21:27:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/5/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined surety of equivalent amount in addition to the personal bond as above. The applicant No.2 shall remain in supervision of good conduct for the said period and the sentence imposed on him as per the order impugned shall remain suspended during that period. It is further directed that in the event of any breach, he shall appear and shall be required to receive the said sentence during such period as may be directed by the Court. [10] With the aforesaid directions and providence as above, the present Criminal Revision Application is partly allowed to the aforementioned extent. Rule is made absolute accordingly to the aforementioned extent.
Sd/-
(PRANAV TRIVEDI, J.) DHARMENDRA KUMAR Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 21:27:24 IST 2025