Raj HC holds victim cannot appeal against grant of probation, restores conviction set aside by sessions court

Jaipur/Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not confer upon a complainant or victim a right to challenge a sentencing order granting the benefit of probation to a convicted accused, and that such an appeal is not maintainable in law. The Court held that interference with a lawful conviction and a reasoned order of probation, in the absence of any finding of perversity or illegality, amounts to a jurisdictional error.

Justice Farjand Ali recorded that the right of appeal in criminal matters is purely statutory and must strictly fall within the categories enumerated under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., namely appeal against acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence, or imposition of inadequate compensation. The Court held that an order granting probation forms part of the sentencing process following conviction and cannot be equated with an order of acquittal or a conviction for a lesser offence.

These observations were made while allowing a criminal revision petition filed by Sumitra, challenging the judgment dated December 19, 2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Court, Begu, District Chittorgarh, whereby the complainant’s appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence dated March 21, 2024 were set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh trial.

The case arose out of FIR No.17/2021 registered at Police Station Rawatbhata for offences under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 452 IPC. After completion of investigation, the case was tried before the ACJM, Rawatbhata. The record showed that on several dates fixed for prosecution evidence, the prosecution failed to examine any witness despite repeated opportunities. Ultimately, on March 21, 2024, the accused submitted a voluntary statement admitting guilt.

The trial court, after satisfying itself regarding the voluntariness of the plea and considering the nature of allegations, absence of criminal antecedents, delay caused due to prosecution default and the possibility of reformation, recorded conviction and extended the benefit of Sections 4 and 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, imposing a nominal amount of Rs.400 towards prosecution expenses under Section 5 of the Act.

Aggrieved only by the sentence, the complainant preferred an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. The Sessions Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and probation order, and remanded the matter for a fresh trial with a direction to record prosecution evidence.

The High Court held that the appeal itself was not maintainable, as dissatisfaction with the sentence or grant of probation does not fall within the scope of the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., and that the power to seek enhancement of sentence vests exclusively with the State under Section 377 Cr.P.C. The Court recorded that the appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction by unsettling a concluded trial without recording any finding of perversity, illegality or non-application of mind.

The Court further held that interference with sentencing discretion is permissible only where such discretion is shown to be illegal or perverse, and that the trial court’s order reflected due consideration of all relevant factors. It was recorded that directing a fresh trial in the present facts resulted in manifest prejudice to the accused and amounted to granting the prosecution a second opportunity after repeated failure to lead evidence.

Accordingly, the High Court quashed and set aside the appellate judgment dated December 19, 2025 and restored the conviction and probation order dated March 21, 2024 passed by the ACJM, Rawatbhata. The Court directed that if the petitioner was in custody solely pursuant to the appellate order, she be released forthwith, unless required in any other case.

Case Title
Sumitra D/o Rooplal vs Ashish S/o Shrikrishnahari Sharma & Another

Case Number
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 103/2026

Court
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jodhpur

Bench
Justice Farjand Ali

Date of Order
February 4, 2026

Advocates
For the petitioner: Mr. Kunwar Parikshit Raj Deora, Mr. Prithvi Singh Balot
For the respondents: Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA