Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Dalip Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:2327) on 14 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:2327]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1137/2024
1. Dalip Singh S/o Shri Mani Ram, Aged About 37 Years, R/o
Rambas, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh. (At
Present Lodged In Sub Jail, Bhadra)
2. Jagdish S/o Shri Raje Ram @ Raju Ram, Aged About 35
Years, R/o Rambas, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.
(At Present Lodged In Sub Jail, Bhadra)
----Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.S. Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP
Mr. B. Ray Bishnoi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
REPORTABLE Judgment
14/01/2025
Instant criminal appeal under Section 415 BNSS has been
filed against the judgment and order dated 25.07.2024 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.
31/2021, whereby the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the
appellants as under :-
S.No. Offence Punishment
1. 459/34 IPC Five years' simple
imprisonment and fine of
Rs. 15,000/-, in default of
fine to undergo four
months S.I
2. 325/34 IPC Three Years simple
(Downloaded on 20/01/2025 at 09:22:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:2327] (2 of 9) [CRLAS-1137/2024]
imprisonment and fine of
Rs. 10,000/-, in default of
fine, to undergo three
months S.I
3. 323/34 IPC Three months simple
imprisonment and fine of
Rs.500/-, in default of
fine to undergo 15 days
S.I.
The concise facts of the case are that a First Information
Report was registered on the basis of oral information of
complainant Mahendra Singh to the effect that on 19.10.2020,
when he went to sleep in the night, the accused Dalip and Jagdish
jumped the wall and entered into his house and inflicted injuries
with lathi and iron rod. The accused persons allegedly inflicted
injuries on his hands, legs and ribs. On raising hue and cry, his
neighbour Balwan and Man Singh came to his rescue.
On the basis of aforesaid report, FIR No. 321/2020 was
registered and investigation commenced. After due investigation,
police filed charge sheet against accused-persons for offence
under Sections 459, 323, 325, 34 IPC. The case was transferred
to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhadra, Hanumangarh where
the charges of the case were framed for offence under Sections
459/34, 323/34, 325/34 IPC against accused. The appellants
denied the charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 12
witnesses and various documents were also exhibited. Thereafter,
statement of appellants under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded.
One witness DW/1 Kamla was examined in defence and four
documents were exhibited.
(Downloaded on 20/01/2025 at 09:22:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:2327] (3 of 9) [CRLAS-1137/2024]
After scrutiny of the material on record and evidence
produced by the prosecution as well as statement of accused
under Section 313 Cr.P.C., learned trial Court vide judgment
dated 25.07.2024 convicted and sentenced the appellants as
stated hereinabove.
Being aggrieved with the judgment and order passed by the
Trial Court, the accused-appellants have preferred this criminal
appeal before this Court.
Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that
during pendency of the appeal, the appellants and complainant
have entered into compromise in the spirit of Lok Adalat and the
compromise deed has been filed before this Court. Therefore, it is
prayed that appellants’ conviction may be quashed and set aside
and they may be acquitted from the aforesaid offences on the
basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. In the
alternative, the counsel submits that the appellants are living in
cordial atmosphere and the conduct of the appellants during the
course of trial as also pending appeal remained good, therefore,
the appellants may be granted the benefit of probation under
Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 as appellants have
no criminal antecedents to discredit them. Learned counsel for the
appellants placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of H.N. Pandakumar Vs. State of Karnataka (Misc
Application No. 2667/2024 in SLP (Crl) No. 895/2024) dated
07.01.2025, judgments of the coordinate Bench of the Rajasthan
High Court in the case of Banwari & Ors Vs. State (S.B. Criminal
Appeal No. 39/1994) decided on 09.02.2024, S.B. Crl. Misc.
Petition No. 3958/2023 ‘Khetpuri & Ors Vs. State of Raj.‘ decided
(Downloaded on 20/01/2025 at 09:22:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:2327] (4 of 9) [CRLAS-1137/2024]
on 07.08.2023 and S.B. Crl. Misc. Petition No. 1059/2023 ‘Kushal
Vs. State & Anr.‘ decided on 06.04.2023.
Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that
complainant has no objection if the conviction of the appellants for
the offence under Sections 459/34, 323/34, 325/34 IPC is set
aside.
I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for
the accused-appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor and
also gone through the entire record.
Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 reproduced
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
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(Downloaded on 20/01/2025 at 09:22:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:2327] (5 of 9) [CRLAS-1137/2024]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) When an order under sub-section (1) is made, the
court may, if it is of opinion that in the interests of the
offender and of the public it is expedient so to do, in
addition pass a supervision order directing that the
offender shall remain under the supervision of a
probation officer named in the order during such period,
not being less than one year, as may be specified therein,
and may in such supervision order impose such
conditions as it deems necessary for the due supervision
of the offender.
(4) The court making a supervision order under sub-
section (3) shall require the offender, before he is
released, to enter into a bond, with or without sureties,
to observe the conditions specified in such order and such
additional conditions with respect to residence,
abstention from intoxicants or any other matter as the
court may, having regard to the particular circumstances,
consider fit to impose for preventing a repetition of the
same offence or a commission of other offences by the
offender.
(5) The court making a supervision order under sub-
section (3) shall explain to the offender the terms and
conditions of the order and shall forthwith furnish one
copy of the supervision order to each of the offenders,
the sureties, if any, and the probation officer concerned.”
It is the duty of the court to impose a proper punishment
depending upon the degree of criminality and desirability to
impose such punishment as a measure of social necessity as a
(Downloaded on 20/01/2025 at 09:22:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:2327] (6 of 9) [CRLAS-1137/2024]
means of deterring other potential offenders. Punishment to be
proper, effective and purposeful must fit not only the crime but
also the criminal. Section 4 of the Act provides a mechanism for
the court to offer probation as an alternative to imprisonment
for certain offenders, especially those are not convicted of any
offence punishable with death or imprisonment, with a focus on
rehabilitation, supervision, and the opportunity for reform.
Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, when applied to
cases where an amicable compromise has been arrived at
between the parties, ensures that offenders who are willing to
reform and who have reconciled with the injured are given a
chance for rehabilitation rather than punishment. This promotes
restorative justice, reduces the burden on the prison system,
and offers a more compassionate and flexible approach to
criminal justice.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of H.N. Pandakumar
(Supra) has observed as under:-
“5. In light of the amicable settlement and the
complainant’s unequivocal consent, as evidenced by the
Interlocutory Application, this Court finds it appropriate
to allow the present M.A. While the offense under
Section 326 IPC is non- compoundable under the
provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the
exceptional circumstances of this case, including the
voluntary settlement between the parties, warrant the
exercise of this Court’s inherent powers to give effect to
the compromise.”
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Hashim
Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., Reported in (2017) 2 SCC 198 has
observed as under:-
(Downloaded on 20/01/2025 at 09:22:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:2327] (7 of 9) [CRLAS-1137/2024]
“23. We have referred to the aforesaid authority to
stress the point that the Court before exercising the
power under Section 4 of the PO Act has to keep in view
the nature of offence and the conditions incorporated
under Section 4 of the PO Act. Be it stated in Dalbir
Singh vs. State of Haryana and others 9 it has been held
that Parliament has made it clear that only if the Court
forms the opinion that it is expedient to release the
convict on probation for the good conduct regard being
had to the circumstances of the case and one of the
circumstances which cannot be sidelined in forming the
said opinion is “the nature of the offence”. 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 9 AIR 2000 SC
1677 provides sufficient indication that releasing the
convicted person on probation of good conduct must
appear to the Court to be expedient.
10. It was then held that the court must construe the
said word in keeping with the context and object of the
provision in its widest amplitude. Here the word
“expedient” is used in Section 4 of the PO Act in the
context of casting a duty on the court to take into
account “the circumstances of the case including the
nature of the offence…”. This means Section 4 can be
resorted to when the court considers the circumstances
of the case, particularly the nature of the offence, and
the court forms its opinion that it is suitable and
appropriate for accomplishing a specified object that the
offender can be released on probation of good conduct.”
The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court Jaipur Bench in the
case of Banwari & Ors (Supra) has observed as under:-
“14. The object behind awarding sentence and sending
an accused in custody is to bring a reform in his
character and to keep him away from the society, so
that his character of committing an offence does not
bring any impact on any other person living in the
society.
15. The accused appellants were convicted in the year,
1994 andafter filing of the present appeal, their
sentence was suspended and they were released on
bail. The accused appellants are residing in the society(Downloaded on 20/01/2025 at 09:22:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:2327] (8 of 9) [CRLAS-1137/2024]peacefully and there are no criminal antecedents to
discredit to them in last 29 years. Looking to this fact,
this Court can safely held that the accused appellants
are not required to be sent back to serve the sentence
for character reformation.
16. In view of the discussion made above, the accused
appellants are entitled to be extended the benefit of
probation under Section 4 of the Act, 1958 and instead
of asking them to serve the imprisonment they be
released on certain conditions.”
From the evidence on record so also finding arrived by the
learned trial court, it appears that the learned trial court has
convicted the appellants on the basis of statements of the
witnesses so also other documents. The courts below came to the
conclusion by way of detailed and speaking order that the
prosecution has proved the charges against the appellants beyond
reasonable doubt. However, since it is case of causing injuries
with lathi and iron rod and appellants have remained behind the
bars for some time so also undergone mental as well as physical
agony of protracted trial, leniency can be shown to some extent.
The accused appellants are residing in the society peacefully and
there are no criminal antecedents against the appellants,
therefore, it will be appropriate to grant benefit of probation under
Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining
the appellants’ conviction for offence under Sections 459/34,
325/34, 323/34 IPC as regarded by the learned trial Court in the
impugned judgment, this Court interferes only with the sentence
part of the said judgment and directs that the appellants shall be
released on probation under Section 4 of the Act, 1958 with a
further undertaking that they will maintain peace and good
(Downloaded on 20/01/2025 at 09:22:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:2327] (9 of 9) [CRLAS-1137/2024]
behavior for a period of two years and shall not repeat the
offence. The fine imposed by the trial court is not interfered with.
Two month’s time is granted to furnish the said undertaking and
deposit the fine before the trial court. Appellants are on bail. Their
bail bonds shall stand discharged on deposition of fine. The record
of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
152-BJSH/-
(Downloaded on 20/01/2025 at 09:22:53 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)