Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2067 (RAJ)

Sanjay v. Harish Chand

2008-09-03

S.P.PATHAK

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - Both the above revision petition and the appeal are being decided together as they arise out of the same judgment and order dated 23.8.2005 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 12/2003 whereby the accused non-petitioners have been convicted for the offences under Sections 147, 341 and 323/149 I.P.C. and instead of sentencing them, benefit of Section 4 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act has been given. 2. Briefly stated, the facts for the disposal of the present matters are that on the basis of a written report dated 9.1.2001 submitted to the S.H.O., Police Station Chiksana at General Hospital, Bharatpur by the complainant, F.I.R. No. 9/2001 was registered for the offence under Sections 147, 149, 323, 341 and 307 I.P.C. After investigation charge-sheet was filed in the concerned Court on 15.11.2003 and charges were framed for the aforesaid offence against the accused Harish Chand, Sher Singh, Deputy Singh, Dalchand, Mahaveer, Dharam Singh. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution produced nine witnesses to prove its case and several documents were tendered in evidence. After close of the prosecution evidence in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the allegations and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case. In defence DW-1 accused Harish Chand Yadav has examined himself as witness and produced 14 documents in evidence. The leaned trial Court finding that the accused has committed offence under Sections 147, 341 and 323/149 I.P.C. convicted the accused but instead of sentencing them to jail gave benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act vide judgment dated 23.8.2005. Hence revision petition has been filed by the complainant for sentencing the accused-respondents and the accused have filed criminal appeal with the prayer to acquit them. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the impugned judgment and the material available on record. 4. In the present case, allegations against the accused in the F.I.R. were to the effect that on the day of incident i.e. on 9.1.2001 while complainant along with his brother Pramod and Satya Prakash was in their field and they were repairing the tubewell, at that time, accused came there along with lathis in their hand and gave severe beating to the complainant and his brother. PW-1 Satya Prakash has stated about the incident and further stated that the accused came at their tube-well and gave beating. PW-2 Bachchu Singh has also stated that the accused came along with lathis and gave beating to them. PW-4 is the injured. He has stated that the accused gave them beating while they were repairing the tube-well. PW-5 is the eye-witness and has stated what other witnesses have stated. All the witnesses have also stated that there was some dispute in relation to land and also in relation to the tube-well. PW-9 is Dr. Ashok Mathur who has examined Sanjay, Satya Prakash, Vipreetram and Pramod Kumar. He has stated that in relation to the above injured he has prepared injury reports Ex.P-3, P-7, P,8 and P-9 respectively. PW-6 Anil Jasauriya was the S.H.O. in the concerned Police Station and has proved the complaint filed by the complainant on 9.1.2001 on which a case was registered. PW-8 Banwari lal has investigated the case. The learned trial Court considering the evidence and finding that the accused party has also sustained grievous injuries, in the facts and circumstances of the case after recording conviction under Sections 147, 341, 323/149 T.P.C. gave benefit to the accused-respondents under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence is liable to be rejected for the simple reason that in this case accused have been found guilty for various offences and instead of sentencing them benefit has been extended to them under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act are mandatory in nature. The Courts are required to extend benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act in a proper case. The learned trial Court while giving benefit to the accused-respondents under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act has considered this aspect of the matter, therefore, I do not find substance in the contention of the learned counsel that the learned trial Court has committed illegality in extending the benefit to the accused respondents under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. In relation to the contention of the counsel for the accused-appellants that they were liable to be acquitted is also not liable to be accepted in view of the evidence discussed with reasons by the learned trial Court and further as has been discussed here-in-above and it has been found by the evidence adduced in this case that the accused were responsible for the incident and caused injuries to the complainant side and in that incident they also sustained injuries. Thus, I am of the opinion that the revision petition as well as the appeal both require to be dismissed as having no merit. 6. In the result, the revision petition and the appeal both stand dismissed.Revision petition and appeal dismissed. *******