Uttarakhand HC Allows Criminal Revision of Thakur Prasad’s Case

Must Read

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi,...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions,...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by...

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour...

Follow us

Uttarakhand HC allows criminal revision of Thakur Prasad’s case directed against the judgement of the Judicial Magistrate. On 17th August 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Justice R.C. Khulbe heard the case of Thakur Prasad And Another v. State of Uttarakhand. A criminal revision was preferred by the revisionist which was directed against the judgment by the learned Judicial Magistrate, U.S. Nagar (Rudrapur). The appeal, preferred by the revisionists, which was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, U.S. Nagar (Rudrapur), was also under challenge in this revision.

Facts of the Case

On 07.11.2002 at about 5 PM, Gyanti Devi’s husband, Panwari, was returning from duty. At that time, Thakur Prasad, Khushal Prasad, Bhulia, Arif and some unknown persons surrounded her husband on the way and committed Marpit with him. There were sharp weapons, lathis and dandas in their hands. 

When her husband went to Pant Nagar Police Station to lodge the report, all the above accused, taking benefit of the absence of her husband, entered her house and assaulted her with legs, fists, Lathis and Dandas. Khushal and Thakur Prasad said that even though her husband had gone to lodge a report, nothing would happen as they had good relations with police.

An FIR was lodged by Gyanti Devi under IPC Sections 452 (House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint), 323 (Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) and 506 (Punishment for criminal intimidation).

After hearing both the parties, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the revisionist. Aggrieved by the decision, the revisionists preferred the appeal to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which was also dismissed. Condemning both the judgments, the present revision was preferred by the revisionists.

Revisionist’s Submission

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionists submitted that the prosecution had successfully proved the charge against the revisionists and did not argue the revision on merits. The conviction recorded by the Trial Court is based on sound evidence. 

The revisionists were Government servants who are now retired and getting the retiral benefits. They are old and infirm persons and they may be given the benefit of the First Offenders Act.

State’s Submission

Learned Counsel for the State submitted that there was no information against the revisionists regarding their criminal history. Accordingly, the benefit of the First Offenders act can be given.

Court’s Observations

The Court referred to the case of Commandant, 20th Battalion, ITB Police Vs. Sanjay Binjola, which held that: 

“Probation of Offenders Act has been enacted in view of the increasing emphasis on the reformation and rehabilitation of the offender as a useful and self-reliant member of society without subjecting him to the deleterious effect of jail life. The Act empowers the Court to release on probation, in all suitable cases, an offender found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life or for the description mentioned in Sections 3 and 4 of the said Act.”

Section 4 of the Act demonstrates the power of the court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct. A careful reading of Section 4 of the Act would reveal that if the offence is punishable for a period more than 2 years, but not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, the admonition of sentence shall not be required.

Court’s Decision

In the present case, the revisionists are first-time offenders. Therefore, considering the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, no useful purpose would be served to send the revisionists to jail to serve out the remaining sentence. Rather, in the opinion of the Court, they should be released on probation to reform themselves. The impugned judgments and orders passed by the trial court and the appellate Court were affirmed and the revision was partly allowed.

The Court also directed that the revisionists will be released on probation for six months on furnishing a personal bond to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments of the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -