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
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 -
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
