MANSHA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) THE accused petitioner is convicted under Section 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.

(3.) 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 under Section 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.