Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Gagan Vasan @ Gagandeep Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:32537) on 11 July, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:32537]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 518/2023
Rajat Dua @ Deepu S/o Yashpal Arora, Aged About 21 Years,
W.no. 11, Near Jyoti Doctor Clinic, Purani Abadi, Dist.
Sriganganagar.
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 562/2023
1.Vikram @ Vickey Chouhan S/o Sh. Gopal Singh, Aged About
21 Years, W.no. 11, Gandhi Basti, Sri Ganganagar.
2.Sameer Khan S/o Sh. Isak Khan @ Sagla, Aged About 23
Years, W.no.11, Near The House Of Heer Lal Parshad, Purani
Aabadi, Sri Ganganagar.
3.Ghanshyam Limba S/o Lt. Sh. Ved Prakash, Aged About 22
Years, W.no. 11, H.no. 152, Near Mahila Park, Purani Aabadi, Sri
Ganganagar.
4.Bilal Khan S/o Mohammed Isak Khan, Aged About 23 Years,
W.no. 15, Purani Aabadi, Sri Ganganagar.
----Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2329/2023
Gagan Vasan @ Gagandeep Singh S/o Manjeet Singh, Aged
About 21 Years, R/o- Ward No. 11, House No. 74 Behind
Sukhwant Cinema, Purani Abadi District Sriganganagar. (At
Present Lodged In Central Jail-Sri Ganganagar).
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
Parveen Nokhwal S/o Sh. Indraj Nokhwal, R/o- House No. 497
Near Hanuman Mandir, Ward No. 11 Purani Abadi District Sri
Ganganagar.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.S. Charan
Mr. Ashok Kumar
Mr. Rakesh Matoria
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA
Mr. Sikander Khan
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 10:02:52 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32537] (2 of 6) [CRLAS-518/2023]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Judgment
11/07/2025
1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Appeals, the appellants
have assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 13.04.2023 passed in Sessions Case No.17/2018, whereby
the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar has
convicted the appellants as under:-
Name of the Offence for Substantive Fine and default
accused which sentence sentence
convicted
Rajat Dua 148 IPC One Year’s SI Rs.500/- and in
Vikram @ Vickey default to further
undergo 15 days’ SI
Sameer Khan
Ghanshyam Limba 341/149 IPC One month’s SI –
Bilal Khan 323/149 IPC Six months' SI Rs.500/- and in Gagan Vasan default to undergo 15 days SI 325/149 IPC Three years' SI Rs.10,000/- and in default to further undergo 2 months' SI
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the
learned Public Prosecutor representing the State, and the learned
counsel for the complainant. The entire trial court record has been
carefully and meticulously examined.
3. The genesis of the prosecution case is rooted in a parcha
bayan given by the injured informant, Praveen Nokhwal, while he
was undergoing treatment in the Male Orthopaedic Ward of the
Govt. Hospital, Sri Ganganagar. As per his allegations, on
08.01.2018, at approximately 4:30 PM, while he was returning
from his workplace and had reached near Mahila Park, he was
allegedly intercepted and physically assaulted by the accused-
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 10:02:52 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32537] (3 of 6) [CRLAS-518/2023]
appellants. It was further alleged that the accused were armed
with a country-made firearm (desi katta), iron rods, hockey sticks,
and wooden lathis. Notably, appellant Sameer purportedly
attempted to discharge the firearm with an intent to inflict fatal
harm, which was averted due to timely intervention by
bystanders.
3.1 Pursuant to this information, an FIR was registered for
offences under Sections 308, 341, 323, and 143 of the Indian
Penal Code. During the course of investigation, an application
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed and allowed, thereby
summoning one Bilal Khan as an additional accused.
3.2 Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was
submitted for offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 341,
307, 147, 148, and 149 IPC. The learned trial court, after framing
charges, proceeded with the trial for offences under Sections 308,
341, 323, 325, 147, 148, and 149 IPC. The accused pleaded not
guilty and claimed trial.
3.3 In support of its case, the prosecution examined 25
witnesses and exhibited 31 documents. In defence, the accused
relied on a solitary document, i.e., Ex.D/1, being the statement of
one Mukesh.
3.4 Upon conclusion of the trial and hearing final arguments, the
learned trial court, vide judgment dated 13.04.2023, convicted the
appellants for offences under Sections 148, 341/149, 323/149,
and 325/149 IPC, while acquitting them of charges under Sections
147 and 308 read with Section 149 IPC. Aggrieved by the findings
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 10:02:52 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32537] (4 of 6) [CRLAS-518/2023]
of conviction and imposition of sentence, the present appeals have
been preferred.
4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants fairly
submitted that they do not intend to challenge the finding of guilt
recorded by the trial court. However, they fervently urged this
Court to exercise its discretion under the Probation of Offenders
Act, 1958 and extend the benefit of probation to the appellants,
considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
5. Upon perusal of the material available on record and after
hearing all parties at length, it is evident that the appellants have
been entangled in criminal litigation since 2018 and have endured
the rigors of the criminal justice process for a considerable
duration. It further appears from the record that none of the
appellants have any antecedents of criminal conduct and this
incident appears to be their first offence. The appellants, young in
age, hail from a humble socio-economic background and are
engaged in menial labor for sustenance. They belong to a small
town situated in the far western region of Rajasthan and reside in
the same locality as the complainant. An assurance has also been
extended that they shall refrain from any unlawful activities in
future.
5.1. In this backdrop, considering the appellants’ age, character,
antecedents, socio-economic circumstances, and the reformative
philosophy underlying penal jurisprudence, this Court is of the
view that the present case is a fit one for extending the benefit of
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 10:02:52 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32537] (5 of 6) [CRLAS-518/2023]
probation under Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Probation of Offenders
Act, 1958.
6. The trial court, in its order of sentence, declined to grant
probation on the sole ground that no affidavit was filed by the
appellants asserting their clean antecedents. In my considered
view, such reasoning is unsustainable in law. The appellants’
assertion of being first-time offenders, in the absence of any
contrary material produced by the prosecution, ought to have
been accepted. There exists no material on record suggesting
prior conviction or habitual criminal behavior. As per the mandate
of Section 360 IPC read with Section 361 CrPC, courts are
required to record special reasons in writing for denial of
probation, especially when dealing with first-time youthful
offenders. Moreover, the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958,
enacted pursuant to international conventions and as part of
India’s commitment to adopt a reformative approach, operates as
a standalone statute and is intended to supplant retributive,
deterrent, and preventive modes of sentencing in suitable cases.
Therefore, the refusal to consider the appellants for probation
amounts to a miscarriage of the reformative justice envisioned by
our legal system.
7. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals are partly
allowed. The judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial
court is affirmed. However, the sentence awarded to the
appellants is modified to the extent that instead of undergoing
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 10:02:52 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32537] (6 of 6) [CRLAS-518/2023]
immediate imprisonment, they shall be released on probation
under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
8. Accordingly, each appellant is directed to furnish a personal
bond in the sum of ₹25,000/- along with one surety of like
amount, for a period of one year, with an undertaking to maintain
peace and good behavior during the said period and to appear and
receive sentence as and when called upon by the Court. The
personal bonds shall be furnished before the trial Court. The
appellants, are on bail, they need not surrender back; their bail
bonds are cancelled.
8.1. Furthermore, in view of the injuries sustained by the victim–
two of which were grievous in nature–it is directed, in exercise of
powers under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, that
each appellant shall pay a sum of ₹5,000/- as compensation,
aggregating to ₹30,000/-, to the victim, Praveen Nokhwal. The
said amount shall be deposited before the trial court within a
period of 90 days from today, upon deposition, the same shall be
disbursed to the victim upon due verification.
9. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.
(FARJAND ALI),J
115-Mamta/-
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 10:02:52 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)