Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Devi Lal vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:14395) on 18 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:14395]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 764/2019
Devi Lal S/o Shri Roop Lal, Aged About 29 Years, By Caste Regar,
R/o Ghatiyawali, Shambhupura, Police Station District
Chittorgarh. (Confined In District Jail, Chittorgarh) ----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. ----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. JVS Deora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.S. Kumpawat, assistant to
Mr. Deepak Chowdhary, GA-cum-AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
18/03/2025
1. Instant criminal revision petition has been preferred under
Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment
dated 12.06.2019 passed by the learend Additional Sessions
Judge No.1, Chittorgarh in Criminal Appeal No.12/2017, whereby
learned Judge while partly allowing the appeal, reduced the
sentence of the petitioner and confirmed the judgment of
conviction dated 15.12.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge &
Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh in Criminal Regular Case
No.119/2015. Learned appellate Judge convicted and sentenced
the present petitioner as under :-
Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
454 IPC 1 year's S.I. Rs.2,000/- 3 months' S.I.
380 IPC 1 year's S.I. Rs.2,000/- 3 months' S.I.
2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the
period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original
imprisonment.
[2025:RJ-JD:14395] (2 of 6) [CRLR-764/2019]
3. The matter pertains to an incident that occurred in the year
2015 and the present appeal has been pending since 2019.
4. The offence under Section 380 IPC and Section 454 IPC, are
punishable, as per the Indian Penal Code, with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to seven years and
shall also be liable to fine, and with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three years and shall
also be liable to fine, respectively. It is further provided in Section
454 IPC that if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the
term of the imprisonment may be extended to ten years.
5. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the
sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner was suspended by a
co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide the order dated 19.06.2019,
and thus, he is on bail.
6. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner however, makes a
limited prayer that the accused-petitioner may be granted benefit
under Section 4 (while considering Section 6) of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
Sections 4 & 6 of the Act read as under:
"4. Power of court to release certain offenders
on probation of good conduct.--
(1) When any person is found guilty of having
committed an offence not punishable with death or
imprisonment for life and the court by which the
person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard
to the circumstances of the case including the nature
of the offence and the character of the offender, it is
expedient to release him on probation of good
conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in
any other law for the time being in force, the court
may, instead of sentencing him at once to any
punishment direct that he be released on his entering
into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and
receive sentence when called upon during such
[2025:RJ-JD:14395] (3 of 6) [CRLR-764/2019]
period, not exceeding three years, as the court may
direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be
of good behaviour: Provided that the court shall not
direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied
that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed
place of abode or regular occupation in the place over
which the court exercises jurisdiction or in which the
offender is likely to live during the period for which he
enters into the bond.
(2) Before making any order under sub-section (1),
the court shall take into consideration the report, if
any, of the probation officer concerned in relation to
the case.
(3)...
(4)...
(5)... "
"6. Restrictions on imprisonment of offenders
under twenty-one years of age.--
(1) When any person under twenty-one years of age
is found guilty of having committed an offence
punishable with imprisonment (but not with
imprisonment for life), the court by which the person
is found guilty shall not sentence him to
imprisonment unless it is satisfied that, having
regard to the circumstances of the case including the
nature of the offence and the character of the
offender, it would not be desirable to deal with him
under section 3 or section 4, and if the court passes
any sentence of imprisonment on the offender, it
shall record its reasons for doing so.
(2) For the purpose of satisfying itself whether it
would not be desirable to deal under section 3 or
section 4with an offender referred to in sub-section
(1) the court shall call for a report from the probation
officer and consider the report, if any, and any other
information available to it relating to the character
and physical and mental condition of the offender."
7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the
appeal and submits that looking to the overall facts and
circumstances of the case and the well reasoned speaking order
passed by the learned court below, the accused-petitioner is not
entitled for any indulgence by this Court.
[2025:RJ-JD:14395] (4 of 6) [CRLR-764/2019]
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case.
9. In Jugal Kishore Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, (1972) 2
SCC 633, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"... Before, however, the benefit of the Act can be
invoked, it has to be shown that the convicted
person even though less than 21 years of age, is not
guilty of an offence punishable with imprisonment
for life. This is clear from the language of Section 6
of the Act."
10. In Lakhvir Singh & Ors. The State of Punjab & Ors.,
(2021) 2 SCC 763, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while reiterating the
decision rendered in Masarullah v. State of Tamil Nadu,
(1982) 3 SCC 458 and Ishar Das v. State of Punjab, (1973)2
SCC 65, held as under:
"... In Masarullah v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1982)
3 SCC 458 there are observations to the effect that
"in case of an offender under the age of 21 years
on the date of commission of the offence, the
Court is expected ordinarily to give benefit of the
provisions of the Act and there is an embargo on the
power of the Court to award sentence unless the
Court considers otherwise, 'having regard to the
circumstances of the case including nature of the
offence and the character of the offender', and
reasons for awarding sentence have to be recorded...
... The rationale is that the underlying purpose
of the provision being reformative - Section
6being a special provision enacted to prevent
the confinement of young persons under 21
years of age in jail, to protect them from the
pernicious influence of hardened criminals...
... while Section 6 provides that a court "must not"
sentence a person under the age of 21 years to
imprisonment unless sufficient reasons for the same
are recorded, based on due consideration of the
probation officer's report. The relevant aspects while
giving benefit under Section 6 of the Act are: the
nature of offence, the character of the offender, and
the surrounding circumstances as recorded in the
probation officer's report..."
[2025:RJ-JD:14395] (5 of 6) [CRLR-764/2019]
11. In Mohd. Hashim Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2017) 2 SCC
198, while reiterating the ratio decidendi laid down in Dalbir
Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (2000) 5 SCC 82, the Hon'ble
Apex Court observed as under:
"... The Court has further opined that though the
discretion as been vested in the court to decide
when and how the court should form such opinion,
yet the provision itself provides sufficient indication
that releasing the convicted person on probation of
good conduct must appear to the Court to be
expedient..."
12. This Court is conscious of the fact that the accused-petitioner
was even below 21 years of age at the time of commission of the
alleged offence, as is reflected from the record of the case and the
punishment, which has been provided under the Indian Penal
Code for the offences under Sections 380 & 454 IPC, as
mentioned above, clearly makes the precedent law of Jugal
Kishore (supra) and Lakhvir Singh (supra) applicable in the
present case.
13. Further, there is no material on record that the accused-
petitioner has any criminal antecedents. Thus, the accused-
petitioner is entitled to the benefit as per the mandatory
requirement of the Act.
14. Thus, this Court, after taking into due consideration the
legislative intent of the Act and the decisions rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohd. Hashim (supra), deems it
appropriate to extend the benefit of the Act to the accused-
petitioner.
[2025:RJ-JD:14395] (6 of 6) [CRLR-764/2019]
15. Resultantly, the present revision petition is partly allowed.
While maintaining the conviction of the present accused-petitioner
for the offences under Sections 380 & 454 IPC, as recorded by the
learned Court below in the impugned judgments, this Court
interferes only with the sentence part of the said judgment, and
directs that the petitioner shall be released on probation, under
Section 4 (while considering Section 6) of the Act, upon each of
them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and
two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of
the learned trial court with a further undertaking that they shall
maintain peace and good behaviour for a period of two years and
shall not repeat the offence.
16. The fine amount is maintained. The amount of fine imposed
by the appellate Court, if not already deposited by the petitioner,
then two months' time is hereby granted to deposit the fine
amount before the trial Court. In default of payment of fine, the
petitioner shall undergo one month's S.I.
17. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail
bonds stand discharged accordingly.
18. All pending applications stand disposed of.
19. Record of the learned courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
18-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
