Patasi Devi vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 6120 Raj

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
            S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 913/2019

Patasi Devi W/o Sh. Kesardev Hakru, Aged About 63 Years, R/o
Village Murdakiya Teh. Sujangarh, Dist. Churu.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.      State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.      Ajay Kumar S/o Sh. Mangilal, R/o Village Murdakiya, Teh.
        Sujangarh, Dist. Churu.
3.      Sunil Kumar S/o Sh. Mahaveer Prasad, R/o Village
        Murdakiya, Teh. Sujangarh, Dist. Churu.
                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Vineet Dave
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. M.S.Bhati, PP



      HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

                                    Order

26/04/2022

      In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its

highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being

maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of

all concerned.

      The revision petition has been preferred claiming the

following reliefs:-
     "It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed
     that this criminal revision petition may kindly be allowed
     and the impugned judgment and order dated 20.09.2018
     passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
     - Sujangarh and judgment and order dated 21.05.2019
     passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-
     Sujangarh may kindly be quashed and set aside."




                    (Downloaded on 28/04/2022 at 08:42:33 PM)
                                                                            (2 of 2)                [CRLR-913/2019]



                                         Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was a

                                   mens-rea and intention behind the crime and thus grant the

                                   benefit of Probation of Offenders Act was not justified.

                                         Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that once

                                   the crime was established beyond reasonable doubt and a proper

                                   conviction has been arrived at in such cases where the offences

                                   are of a personal nature and the injuries in question are proved,

                                   the benefit of probation would only create agony amongst the

                                   complainant.

                                         Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the revision petition.

                                         This Court finds that the conviction is maintained by the

                                   learned trial court and since there were no antecedents of

                                   petitioner and the other surroundings circumstances warranted

                                   the exercise of benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, therefore, no

                                   cause of interference in the impugned order is called for.

                                         Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending

                                   applications also stand dismissed accordingly.



                                                                (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

120-/Sudheer//-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)