Rajasthan High Court Upholds Benefit Of Probation To Two Convicts, Says Complainant Has No Right To Seek Enhancement Of Sentence
The Rajasthan High Court on Tuesday upheld the judgement of a trial court which extended the benefit of probation to two convicts who were convicted under Section 323 (Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), Section 325 (Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt) and Section 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) of IPC, in alternative to their imprisonment....
The Rajasthan High Court on Tuesday upheld the judgement of a trial court which extended the benefit of probation to two convicts who were convicted under Section 323 (Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), Section 325 (Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt) and Section 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) of IPC, in alternative to their imprisonment.
The singe judge bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed:
“I have gone through the judgment passed by learned trial Judge and thereafter by the learned appellate Court, it appears that the learned trial Judge has meticulously examined the evidence brought on record and after hearing the parties on the point of sentence and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as ambit and scope and the object of Probation of Offenders Act, deemed it appropriate to extend the benefit of probation to the accused respondents.”
The accused-respondents were convicted for the offences under Sections 323, 325 and 504 of IPC vide judgment and order dated February 1, 2016 passed by ACJM, Udaipur. The ACJM Court, instead of sending the accused-respondents to jail, extended the benefit of probation in their favour and directed to pay a total of Rs.600/- as a cost of proceeding.
Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner-complainant filed an appeal before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court vide judgment dated January 13, 2020 upheld the finding of conviction and order of granting probation but directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as a compensation to be given to the victim (present petitioner).
However, the petitioner-complainant preferred a revision petition before the High Court challenging the judgment dated February 1, 2016 passed by ACJM, Udaipur.
The court observed that no illegality or impropriety had been committed by the trial court in extending the benefit of probation to the accused persons.
The court further noted that the sessions court took a further lenient view in favour of the petitioner and in addition to what was passed by the trial court, the sessions court deemed it appropriate to direct the accused-respondents to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as an amount of compensation.
The court held:
“The judgment passed by the Court below are well reasoned and speaking judgment, leaving no room for interference. Otherwise also, there is no right available to the complainant to make a plea for enhancement of sentence. The finding of guilt and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court has been meticulously examined by the learned appellate Court and thus, no further grounds are present to seek interference of this Court in revisional jurisidiction while examining the legality, correctness and propriety of judgment of conviction and order of sentence.”
The court thus dismissed the revision petition as being devoid of any force.
Case Title: Chamanlal Chanderia v. State & 2 Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Raj) 19
Coram: Justice Farjand Ali