SHODAN SINGH versus STATE AND ORS

High Court of Rajasthan

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

SHODAN SINGH v STATE AND ORS - CRLR Case No. 582 of 2002 [2007] RD-RJ 1375 (15 March 2007)

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

ORDER

S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 582/2002

SHODAN SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

DATE: 15.03.2007.

HON'BLE MR. K.S. RATHORE, J.

Mr. Biri Singh with

Mr. Kamlendra Sihag for the complainant-petitioner.

Mr. B.S. Chhaba, Public Prosecutor for the State.

Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma for the accused-respondents.

****

The present criminal revision petition under

Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C. is preferred by the complainant-petitioner against the judgment dated 07.06.2002 passed by the Additional District & Sessions

Judge, Laxmangarh (Alwar) in Criminal Appeal No. 5/2000, whereby the Appellate Court while partly allowing the appeal filed by the accused-respondents, set-aside the order of the trial Court dated 14.06.2000 and while acquitting the accused-respondent Prakash from all the charges, acquitted the other three accused namely Laxman,

Sadasukh and Nand Kishore also from the charge of offence under Sections 326/34, 324 and 324/34 IPC and convicted the accused-respondents Laxman and Sadasukh for the offence under Sections 323 and 325/34 IPC and accused- respondent Nand Kishore for the offence under Sections 323 and 325 IPC, but instead of sentencing them, granted

(2) the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the

Probation of Offenders Act with a direction to pay compensation @ Rs. 500/- to each injured jointly.

Learned counsel for the petitioner without challenging the impugned judgment dated 07.06.2002 so far as extending benefit of probation under Section 4 of the

Probation of Offenders Act in favour of the accused- respondents is concerned, has only challenged the impugned judgment to the extent that the compensation awarded by the Appellate Court @ Rs. 500/- to each injured is inadequate looking to the injury and agony suffered by the petitioner.

Having considered the aspect of compensation and having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel for the accused-respondents and after going through the record of the case, in the interest of justice, I deem it proper to enhance the amount of compensation from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 2,000/- for each of the accused which shall be paid by the accused.

With the aforesaid observations, the revision petition stands disposed of. Record be sent back forthwith.

(K.S. RATHORE),J. /KKC/

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.