Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 215 (RAJ)

Mangtu Ram S/o Prem Das v. State of Rajasthan

2005-01-24

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant criminal revision petition u/s. 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code") is directed against the judgment dated 17.3.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar, Camp Suratgarh (for short, "Appellate Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Appeal No. 23/2002, whereby the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners against the judgment and order dated 22.7.2002 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh (for short, "the trial Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Regular Case No. 530/1995, whereby the trial Court convicted the petitioners for the offences u/ss. 148, 447, 427, 323/149 IPC and instead of sentencing them at once to any punishment, the petitioners were granted the benefit of Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short, "the Act, 1958") and directed to release on probation provided each of them furnishes a bond in the sum of Rs. 3,000/- to maintain peace and tranquility and be of good behavour for a period of three years and they were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- each as prosecution expenses. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the petitioners have filed the instant revision petition. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor for the State. I have carefully perused the judgments and orders passed by the Courts below and gone through the record of the trial Court. 3. At the out set, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners do not challenge their conviction for the aforesaid offences as also the grant of benefit of Section 4 of the Act, 1958. However, he has confined his challenge only to the extent of directing each of the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as prosecution expenses. 4. On careful perusal of the record, more particularly on close scrutiny of the statements of prosecution witnesses, as also the documentary evidence, in my view, both the Courts below, on proper and sound application of evidence, rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case against the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt. The occurrence alleged to have taken place on 15.8,1995 and the petitioners have faced the protracted trial, appeal and the present revision almost for a period of about ten years from the date of the occurrence. The occurrence alleged to have taken place on 15.8,1995 and the petitioners have faced the protracted trial, appeal and the present revision almost for a period of about ten years from the date of the occurrence. The petitioners have already furnished the bonds as directed by the Courts below. The Courts below have not awarded any compensation to the victim u/s. 5 of the Act, 1958 , however, directed the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,000/- each as prosecution expenses. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the amount directed to be deposited would ultimately not reach to the victim, I consider it just and proper to modify the impugned orders to the extent directing the petitioners to pay the prosecution expenses. 6. Consequently, the revision petition filed by the petitioners against their conviction is hereby dismissed. The conviction of the petitioners for the offences u/ss. 148, 447, 427, 323/149 IPC, as also the order granting the benefit of Section 4 of the Act, 1959, are maintained. However, the order directing each of the petitioners to pay Rs. 1,000/- as prosecution expenses is hereby set-aside. Let the record of the Courts below be returned forthwith.Revision Petition dismissed. *******