Mansha and Ladu vs State of Rajasthan

Farooq Hasan, J.—This revision petition is directed against the judgment dt. 3-7-80 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bundi where by he mainained the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.

The accused petitioner is convicted u/s 457 and 380 IPC it has been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the recovery witnesses turned hostile and the identification memo is also defective. He, therefore, submitted that the accused petitioner is entitled for acquittal. The learned Counsel further submitted that looking to the age of the petitioner at the time when the so called offence is committed, was eighteen years. There is nothing on record as to show that the accused petitioner is a previous convict or was having an objectionable conduct. So the learned Counsel snbmitted that the accused petitioner should be given the benefit of probation.

The learned Public Prosecutor had no objection in extending the benefit to the petitioner.

I have considered the argument advanced by the learned Counsel. Both the courts below have given a concurrent finding against the petitioner and held him guilty u/s 457 and 380 IPC. Both the courts below have discussed the evidence at length. Revisional Court does not normally interfere with the finding of the fact unless there is good and weighty reasons and if the finding is allowed to stand it would result in failure of justice. Concurrent finding can be interfered with only when there is moterial illegality or exclusion of any material evidence.

I do not find any such infirmity in the judgment of the courts below, I find no force in this revision on merits.

The accused petitioner has been charge-sheeted on the basis of the report lodged about an occurrence of 4-6-1972. The case is pending for the last 13-14 years. The accused petitioner claimed himself a boy of 18 years of age. The appeal against conviction has been decided in the year 1980. Since then this revision is pending. The accused petitioner remained on bail through out the pendency of the trial, appeal and revision. Under these circumstances it will not be just to send the accused in jail to serve out the sentence. Looking to the age and the circumstances of the case and that the accused is not a previous convict, I think it proper to extend the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the accused petitioner.

Accordingly the revision petition is partly allowed. I maintain the order of conviction but while suspending the sentence the accused petitioner is released on probation provided the accused-petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2000/- and one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Bundi with this condition that the accused shall maintain peace and be of good behaviour In the case of breach of the condition the accused shall serve out the sentence passed by the trial court. The accused petitioner is further directed to submit the bonds within a period of 3 months of the receipt of the record of the trial court.