Siya Ram vs State (2023:Rj-Jp:21465)
2023 Latest Caselaw 4644 Raj/2

[2023:RJ-JP:21465]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 684/2001

Siya Ram S/o Kamal Gurjar, R/o Patkya, PS Bhusawar, Distt.
Bharatpur
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                          Versus
State of Rajasthan through PP
                                                                       ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Satya Pal Poshwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Sharma, PP.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

Order

06/09/2023

1. The petitioner faced trial in Criminal Case No.341/1995 and

by judgment dated 04.12.2000, he was convicted for offence

under Section 325 IPC and sentenced for one year simple

imprisonment and fine of Rs.400/-. The petitioner was further

held guilty for offence under Section 324 IPC and was sentenced

for six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.200/-.

Additionally, the petitioner was also found guilty for offence under

Section 323 IPC and sentenced for three months simple

imprisonment and fine of Rs.100. In default of payment of fine,

the petitioner had to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment.

2. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid conviction in Criminal

Appeal No.34/2000.

3. The appellate Court was of the view that since there was no

evidence of radiologist, the prosecution failed to prove a case of

grievous hurt and accordingly, acquitted the petitioner for the

[2023:RJ-JP:21465] (2 of 2) [CRLR-684/2001]

charge under Section 325 IPC and maintained other convictions

and sentences by judgment dated 09.08.2001.

4. Both the judgments are challenged herein under Section 397

Cr.P.C.

5. Heard the parties and examined the impugned orders.

6. There is evidence of eye-witnesses to support the factum of

incident, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the

conviction. However, both the Courts below have erred in not

allowing the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioner

nor have assigned any special reason as required under Section

361 Cr.P.C. that the petitioner was not entitled for the said benefit.

As of now, after 20 years, no purpose would be served by

allowing the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act instead of

sentences awarded by the Court below. Therefore, it is directed

that the sentence awarded to the petitioner stands reduced to the

period already undergone. Petitioner is exonerated of the liability

of the bail bond.

7. This instant petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid

observation.

(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J

NAVAL KISHOR /1

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)