Sanju Devi vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 9111 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 344/2021

Smt. Sanju Devi W/o Sukhram, Aged About 47 Years, By Caste Jat, R/o Kalibanga, Tehsil Police Station Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

2. Shyoprakash S/o Rajendra Prasad, R/o Kalibanga, Police Station Pilibanga, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

3. Urmila W/o Rajendra Prasad, R/o Kalibanga, Police Station Pilibanga, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajak K. Haider For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rajpurohit, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Order

08/04/2021

The instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C.

has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated

27.01.2021 passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh

whereby the learned Judge partly allowed the appeal filed by the

accused-respondents No.2 & 3 while extending the benefit of

Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and upheld the

conviction of accused respondents No.2 & 3 for the offences under

Sections 451, 323, 324 read with Section 34 of IPC. The learned

Judicial Magistrate, Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh vide order

dated 28.01.2020 had convicted and sentenced the accused

respondents for the aforesaid offences.

(2 of 2) [CRLR-344/2021]

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate

court itself has given the finding at para No.17 of the impugned

judgment that the conviction awarded by the trial Court is justified

and the appeal filed by the accused respondents does not

deserves to be accepted, however, in the next para, the finding

has been given that a liberal view can be taken in the matter and

only on this finding, the learned appellate Court has extended the

benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the accused respondents

which is unsustainable in law. Therefore, the order passed the

appellate court deserves to be quashed and set aside.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer made by the

counsel for the petitioner.

I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced on

behalf of the parties and perused the impugned order as also the

material available on record. The appellate Court after considering

each and every aspect of the matter, while convicting the accused

respondents for offences under Sections 451, 323, 324 read with

Section 34 of IPC extended the benefit of Probation of Offenders

Act. In the opinion of this Court, there is no illegality or perversity

in the impugned order passed by the learned appellate court and

no interference is called from this Court.

Hence, the instant revision petition filed by the petitioner is

hereby dismissed.

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 41-priyal/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)