Birbal vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 2934 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

           S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 766/2014

Birbal son of Shri Chandra Ram by caste Jat resident of village
Pratap Pura PS Laxmangarh District Sikar
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, through PP
2. Dr.SK Batad son of Shri Sukhvir Singh by caste Jat resident of
ward No.40, Sikar Present S K Hospital Sikar
                                                                     ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Pyare Lal through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr.Pankaj Agarwal, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR Judgment / Order

14/07/2021

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

impugned judgment and order.

This criminal revision petition has been filed against the

impugned order dated 9.4.2014 passed by learned Sessions

Judge, Sikar whereby the court below convicted the respondent

no.2 Dr.S.K.Batad for the offence under Section 341 and 323 IPC

but given the benefit of section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act

and imposed the fine of RS.500/-. It was further directed to pay

Rs.300/- out of the fine of Rs.500/- to the petitioner/injured/

complainant. The petitioner/injured challenged the order dated

18.11.2013 before the court of Sessions, Sikar which vide

impugned Judgment & order dated 9.4.2014 maintained the order

by increasing the fine from Rs.500/- to Rs. 2000/- and further

directed to pay remaining amount of Rs.1500/- to the

petitioner/injured as compensation.

(2 of 2) [CRLR-766/2014]

Aggrieved with the aforesaid order dated 9.4.2014, the

complainant filed this petition inter alia stating that the impugned

judgment & order dated 9.4.2014 is legally not sustainable. It has

been further submitted that both the courts below have committed

error of law by giving benefits of Section 3 of the probation of

Offenders Act to the accused-respondent. The accused respondent

had committed the offence while performing public duties of a

doctor in Govt. Hospital, Sikar. Further, it has been submitted that

both the courts below have failed to consider that the petitioner

has suffered more than the accused in prosecution of the case.

Therefore, the order of conviction and sentence passed by learned

trial court and affirmed by learned appellate court are required to

be modified and accused to be sentenced and benefit of Sec.3 of

Probation of Offenders Act may be withdrawn.

Perused the material placed this court.

Taking note of the nature of offence and the fact that the

matter was settled in the spirit of "Lok Adalat", I do not find any

ground to interfere with the findings arrived at by both the courts

below.

Accordingly, in view of above, this revision petition is

dismissed.

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J

SANDEEP RAWAT /41

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)