Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 224 (RAJ)

Ram Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2005-01-25

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-By this criminal revision petition under Section 397, CrPC, the accused-petitioner has assailed the impugned Judgment dated 28.02.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur (for short, "the appellate Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Appeal No. 61/97 (31/94), by which the appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and affirmed the Judgment dated 06.04.1994 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Karanpur (for short, "the trial Court" hereinafter) and maintained the conviction and sentence of the appellate under Section 326, IPC. 2. The facts of case, relevant and necessary for decision of this revision petition, in a nut shell are that on 06.06.1986, complainant-injured Sohan Singh lodged a complaint with Police Station Keshrisinghpur to effect that on the preceding day, accused-petitioner Ram Singh and co-accused Soha h were consuming liquor and when the complainant demanded one quarter of liqu r co-accused Sohan Singh exhorted petitioner Ram Singh to assault the complainant, whereup n accused-petitioner Ram Singh inflicted a Gandasi blow on his left arm, which resulted in a fracture. On this report, the investigation ensued and challan was filed against accused-petitioner and co-accuse Soha h for the offences under Sections 323 and 326/34, IPC. The trial Court framed charges against accused-petitioner for the offence under Sections 323-326, IPC, and under Sections 323/34 and 326/34 against co- ed Sohan Singh. After trial, the trial Court, vide Judgment and order date 06.04.1994, convicted ed-petitioner Ram Singh for the offence under Section 326, IPC, an sentenced him to the rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default o payment thereof further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. However, co-accuse Sohan Singh has been acquitted of the aforesaid offences. Aggrieved with the Judgment and order o the trial Court, accused-petitioner Ram Singh preferred an appeal before the appellate Court, which has been dismissed vide impugned Judgment and order dated 28.02.2000. Hence, this revision. record.3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the onl4. The revision petiti n is barred by limitation of 1625 days. Even the application filed under Section 5 o the Limitation Act is not supported by any affidavit. Hence, this revision. record.3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the onl4. The revision petiti n is barred by limitation of 1625 days. Even the application filed under Section 5 o the Limitation Act is not supported by any affidavit. Apart from these defects, even a cop of the Judgment and rder dated 28.02.2000 passed by the appellant Court has not bee filed and a certi ie copy of the Judgment and order of the trial Cou t has been filed alongwith the revision petition. The reason assigned for non-filing of copy of the Judgment and order of the appella t C urt is that h applie for the certified copy of the Judgment and or e on 110.2004 but his applicati n for certifi d copy had rejected on the ground that the recor of the appeal had already been weeded out on 31.01.2003. In the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which is not supported by an affidavit, it has mentioned that on being arrested on 29.09.2000, the petitioner came to know abou dismissal of his appeal on 28.02.2000. No satisfactory explanation has been furnished for filling the appeal beyond the period of limitation of 1625 days. Again, Rule 132(1)(a) of the Rules of the High Cour of Judicature for Rajasthan, 1952 pertains to documents to accompany memorandum of appeal or revision application and provides that every memorandum of appeal or application for revision shall be accompanied by a copy of the decree or formal order against which the appeal or application is directe . Petitioner has also file an application under Section 482, CrPC, for dispensing with production of certified copy of the impugned Judgment and order dated 28.02.2000 passed by appellate Court. The petitioner should blame himself for the delay, laches and apathy on his part which resulte in weeding of recor of the concerned appeal as per the rule and procedure. However, since a certified copy of impugned order dated 28.02.2000 passed by the appellate Court is already on the record of the trial Court, therefore, in view of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Vijay Singh etc., 1987 (2) RLR 867, the application under Section 482, CrPC, is allowed and filing of certified copy of the appellate Court is dispensed with. However, no sufficient cause has been shown by the petitioner which prevented him to file the revision petition within period of limitation. Thus, in absence of satisfactory explanation for filing the appeal after a delay of 1625 days, the revision petition deserves to be dismissed as being barred by limitation. 5. Even on merit, there is sufficient evidence on record, supported by the medical evidence, to effect that injured-complainant Sohan Singh sustained fracture on his hand as a result of Gandasi-blow inflicted by accused-petitioner. I have carefully gone through the Judgment s and orders of the Court below. On a careful perusal of the impugned Judgment and order of the trial Court, I am of the view that the trial Court has appreciated the evidence in right perspective and there is no error or illegality in the impugned Judgment and order of the trial Court which may require interference by this Court. The appellate Court on re-appreciation of entire evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt and dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Judgment and order of the trial Court by a reasoned Judgment . There is, thus, concurrent findings of facts by the Courts below. 6. A Three Judge Bench of the Honble Supreme Court, in Duli Chand vs. Delhi Administration, 1975 (4) SCC 649 , held that it is not the practice of the Court to re-assess and re-appreciate the evidence for the purpose of examining whether the finding of fact concurrently arrived is correct or not and it is only in rare and exceptional cases where there is some manifest illegality or grave and serious miscarriage of justice that this Court would interfere with such finding of fact. 7. In view of the settled legal proposition, on close scrutiny of the evidence produced by the prosecution in the instant case, I do not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or perversity in the orders impugned. Both the Courts below concurrently found the petitioner guilty for the offence, for which he has been convicted and sentenced. In the circumstances, therefore, it cannot be said that any manifest illegality or grave and serious injustice has been caused to the petitioner and, therefore, it is not a fit case warranting interference in the revisional jurisdiction. 8. Both the Courts below concurrently found the petitioner guilty for the offence, for which he has been convicted and sentenced. In the circumstances, therefore, it cannot be said that any manifest illegality or grave and serious injustice has been caused to the petitioner and, therefore, it is not a fit case warranting interference in the revisional jurisdiction. 8. Resultantly, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as also the revision petition are dismissed. The application for suspension of sentence also stands dismissed.