Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1252 (RAJ)

CHENA RAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH PP.

2017-05-16

P.K.LOHRA

body2017
ORDER : P.K. Lohra, J. The revision-petitioner complainant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.01.2014, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No. 4, Jodhpur Metro (for short, 'learned appellate Court'), whereby learned appellate Court confirmed the verdict dated 17.12.2012, rendered by learned Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur (for short, 'learned trial Court'), has preferred this revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. 2. Initially, the learned trial Court, vide its judgment dated 17.12.2012, indicted the accused-respondent for offence under Sections 341 and 323 IPC but granted him benefit of section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 by ordering his admonition. Subsequently, the learned appellate Court, while concurring with the findings and conclusions of the learned trial Court, affirmed the same by dismissing appeal of the petitioner. 3. In brief, facts of the case are that a written complaint was submitted by Chenaram petitioner-complainant on 05.02.2012 at Police Station Udaimandir stating inter-alia therein that while he was talking with some persons he heard hue and cry of his family members and on his rushing towards them found accused Dependra Singh, Shaktisingh and 3-4 other person misbehaving with his wife and children and abusing them. On his attempt to pacify and convince the accused persons, they attacked him and gave beatings. A significant fact, the incumbents Vijay Bharti, Laxman Singh and Manoj intervened to come to complainant's rescue, also find mention in the report. It was further alleged that accused persons torn his clothes and snatched away a sum of Rs. 2,000 from him. The police registered a case bearing FIR No. 68/2012 for offence under Sections 341, 323 IPC and started investigation. After investigation, the accused-respondent was prosecuted by filing charge-sheet for offence under Sections 341, 323 IPC before the court. Learned trial Court framed charge and on denial by the accused-respondent he was put on trial. 4. In order to prove charge against accused-respondent, from the side of prosecution two witnesses were examined. Subsequently, statement of accused-respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 and thereafter learned trial Court proceeded to hear final arguments. The learned trial Court by its verdict dated 17.12.2012 although convicted the accused-respondent for the offence but extended him benefit under section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. That apart, the learned trial Court imposed a penalty of Rs. The learned trial Court by its verdict dated 17.12.2012 although convicted the accused-respondent for the offence but extended him benefit under section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. That apart, the learned trial Court imposed a penalty of Rs. 200 on the accused respondent and directed him to pay it to the complainant after expiry of the period of limitation of filing appeal/revision. 5. Against the verdict of learned trial Court, complainant approached learned appellate Court by filing an appeal under Section 11 (2) of the Act of 1958 and the learned appellate Court after scrutinizing the entire evidence and other materials available on record, while fully concurring with the findings and conclusions of the learned trial Court, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 15.01.2014. It is, in that background, petitioner has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgments and thoroughly scanned the entire record. 7. The object of the Act of 1958 is reformation of the offenders being a piece of beneficent legislation. The Act of 1958 is an extension of the reformative theory of punishment. The Act was conceived and enacted with the sole aim of giving the offender a chance to reform himself and to make progress in the life. Thus, the land able objective of probation is two-fold (1) the rehabilitation of probationer, and (2) the prevention of recurrence of crimes. The basic idea is that the offender redeems himself and is purged of the offence and the law helps him to help himself to erase the stigma of conviction by keeping the peace and being of good behaviour for the stipulated period. In criminal law, the word "probation" means the conditional suspension or imposition or execution of sentences by the Court in selected cases, especially of young offenders who are not sent to prison, but are released on probation either after simple admonition as contemplated under Section 3 of the Act or on a bond, with or without sureties, to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. 8. Upon examining the impugned judgment of learned trial Court, it is abundantly clear that it has made sincere endeavour to appreciate the evidence and recorded its finding for indicting the accused petitioner. 8. Upon examining the impugned judgment of learned trial Court, it is abundantly clear that it has made sincere endeavour to appreciate the evidence and recorded its finding for indicting the accused petitioner. Moreover, while granting him benefit of probation, the learned trial Court has considered all the pros & cons including his social status and previous conduct. The learned appellate Court also, while fully concurring with the said finding and conclusion of the learned trial Court, has recorded its satisfaction that there is no infirmity in the findings of the learned trial Court. 9. It is settled that High Court ought not to act as a second appellate court and undertake an in-depth and minute reexamination of the entire evidence and thereafter upset concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court. The Supreme Court has cautioned that the High Court is required to exercise self-restraint in a revision petition and in absence of any manifest illegality, perversity and miscarriage of justice, the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction ought not to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in the light of the legal position with regard to the scope of judicial review under revisional power of this Court and the aims and objects of the Act of 1958, I am of the view that the learned Courts below have rightly exercised their discretion. In totality, the findings and conclusions cannot be said to be perverse or based on inadmissible evidence or non-existent facts. On overall objective analysis, I am afraid, both the impugned concurring judgments do not suffer from the vice of manifest illegality, perversity and miscarriage of justice, requiring re-examination of the entire evidence in revisional jurisdiction. 11. While exercising revisional jurisdiction, court is only to see procedural error, irregularity and non-appreciating and non-application of law. Re-appreciation of evidence is not desirable under the revisional jurisdiction. It is also trite that this Court in revision cannot embark on sufficiency of materials before the court below for recording its satisfaction. As both the Courts below have examined the matter threadbare in its entirety and have arrived at a finding concurrently which is based on sound appreciation of evidence, the same is not liable to be tinkered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 12. As both the Courts below have examined the matter threadbare in its entirety and have arrived at a finding concurrently which is based on sound appreciation of evidence, the same is not liable to be tinkered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 12. Legal position is no more res-integra that revisional jurisdiction is to be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interests of public justice require interference for correction of a manifest illegality or prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. In the instant matter, no such situation has come to the fore so as to treat it an exceptional case. 13. Accordingly, I feel dissuaded to exercise revisional jurisdiction in the matter to interfere with the verdict of learned trial Court and affirmed by learned appellate Court. 14. Resultantly, the petition fails and same is, hereby, dismissed.