Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Dau Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan

Dau Singh vs State of Rajasthan

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Mar 07, 1986
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/770056

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 64 of 1986
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Penal Code - Sections 323, 147 and 148--Benefit of probation--Accused not previous convict--Minor injuries caused--Held, entering into house and beating no ground to refuse benefit of probation.;Revision Accepted - - two thousand) with a surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Munsif and ...

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dau Singh

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Reported In
1986WLN(UC)659

Excerpt

penal code - sections 323, 147 and 148--benefit of probation--accused not previous convict--minor injuries caused--held, entering into house and beating no ground to refuse benefit of probation.;revision accepted - - two thousand) with a surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned munsif and judicial. magistrate, bhim, for appearing and receiving sentence whenever called upon to do so within a period of one year and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.kishore singh lodha, j.1. this revision has been filed by ten petitioners, who have been convicted under sections 323, 147 and 448 ipc and sentenced to one month's s.i. under each count by the learned munsif and judl. magistrate, bhim and whose appeal has been dismissed by the learned addl. sessions judge, rajsamand.2. the only contention raised before me by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned munsif and the learned addl. sessions judge did not exercise their discretion properly in refusing probation to the petitioners. the offences are very minor. the accused are not said to be previous convicts and the incident also appears to have taken place due to very trivial reasons. the injuries suffered by three injured persons are very minor. looking to these circumstances, i am of the opinion that the contention of the learned counsel deserves to be accepted. the only reason given by the learned courts below is that beating had been given to these persons after entering into their house. in my opinion, this by itself was no reason to the petitioners looking to the other circumstances pointed out above.3. i, therefore, partly accept the revision and while maintaining the convictions of the petitioners in the aforesaid offences. i set aside the sentences awarded to them. they are not sentenced to any punishment forwith but shall be released on their entering into a bond in the sum of rs. 2000/-(rs. two thousand) with a surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned munsif and judicial. magistrate, bhim, for appearing and receiving sentence whenever called upon to do so within a period of one year and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. i further direct that the petitioners shall pay a sum of rs. 50/-each as compensation to the three injured persons.

Full Judgment

Kishore Singh Lodha, J.

1. This revision has been filed by ten petitioners, who have been convicted under Sections 323, 147 and 448 IPC and sentenced to one month's S.I. Under each count by the learned Munsif and Judl. Magistrate, Bhim and whose appeal has been dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajsamand.

2. The only contention raised before me by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Munsif and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge did not exercise their discretion properly in refusing probation to the petitioners. The offences are very minor. The accused are not said to be previous convicts and the incident also appears to have taken place due to very trivial reasons. The injuries suffered by three injured persons are very minor. Looking to these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the contention of the learned Counsel deserves to be accepted. The only reason given by the learned Courts below is that beating had been given to these persons after entering into their house. In my opinion, this by itself was no reason to the petitioners looking to the other circumstances pointed out above.

3. I, therefore, partly accept the revision and while maintaining the convictions of the petitioners in the aforesaid offences. I set aside the sentences awarded to them. They are not sentenced to any punishment forwith but shall be released on their entering into a bond in the sum of Rs. 2000/-(Rs. two thousand) with a surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Munsif and Judicial. Magistrate, Bhim, for appearing and receiving sentence whenever called upon to do so within a period of one year and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. I further direct that the petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs. 50/-each as compensation to the three injured persons.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial