Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 576 (RAJ)

Ambilal v. State of Rajasthan

2019-02-18

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2019
JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Garg, J. - Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 04.08.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Parbatsar, District Nagaur by which the learned Judge partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the judgment and order dated 11.01.2016 passed by the learned trial court to the extent of granting the benefit of section 4(1) of Probation of Offenders Act. Learned Appellate Court set aside the judgment to the extent of directing the accused respondents to deposit Rs. 1,250/- each as prosecution expenses under section 5 of Probation of Offenders Act and instead thereof, directed the accused-respondents to deposit Rs. 5,000/- each as compensation for disbursement of the same to the injured. The learned trial court by the judgment dated 11.01.2016 convicted the accused-respondent Nos.2 & 3 for offence under Sections 341, 323, 427 IPC but instead of sentencing, released them while granting benefit of section 4(1) of Probation of Offenders Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 14.11.2015 a written report was submitted by the petitioner/complainant before the Police Station Chitawa, District Nagaur stating therein that he was running a Dhaba situated opposite to SR Petrol Pump, Danta to Sikar road, Village Ghatwa. On 12.11.2015, in the evening, at about 8:00 PM, about 5 to 6 persons came to his Dhaba and after consuming liquor, they took meal at his Dhaba. When the complainant demanded money for the meal, they refused to pay the money. Daljeet Pareek and Prakash uttered caste abusive words to him. It was further stated that the accused-persons also called 10 to 15 more persons and all of them started beating him and his brother Mahipal, due to which he and his brother received injuries. They also took away Rs. 2,000/- from his cash box and one mobile along with SIM lying thereon. They also snatched Rs. 22,500/- from the pocket of Mahipal and thereafter all the accused ran away. 3. On the basis of the said report, Police registered a case bearing FIR No.192/2015 at Police Station Chitawa, District Nagaur for offences under Sections 143, 341, 323, 379 IPC and sections 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act against the accused-persons and started investigation. 4. After the completion of the investigation, the Police filed challan against the accused-respondent Nos.2 & 3 for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 427 IPC. 4. After the completion of the investigation, the Police filed challan against the accused-respondent Nos.2 & 3 for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 427 IPC. Thereafter the learned trial court framed the charges for the aforesaid offences against the accused-respondents, who accepted the accusation but requested to extend them the benefit of probation. 5. After hearing the arguments, the learned trial court vide judgment and order dated 11.01.2016 convicted the accused respondents for offences under Sections 341, 323, 427 IPC but released them while extending the benefit of section 4(1) of Probation of Offenders Act and directed them to deposit Rs. 1,250/- each towards the prosecution expenses. 6. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of the trial court, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate court. The learned appellate court after hearing the arguments vide judgment dated 04.08.2016 partly allowed the appeal and upheld the judgment and order dated 11.01.2016 passed by the learned trial court to the extent of granting the benefit of section 4(1) of Probation of Offenders Act but set aside the order directing the accused-respondents to deposit Rs. 1,250/ each as prosecution expenses under section 5 of Probation of Offenders Act and instead thereof, directed the accused-respondents to deposit Rs. 5,000/- each as compensation for disbursement of the same to the injured Mahipal and Ramlal. Hence, this revision against the judgments and orders of the courts below. 7. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's brother Mahipal sustained many injuries in the incident, but the learned trial court did not consider this material aspect of the matter and extended the benefit of probation to the accused respondents without passing any sentence against them. Counsel further submitted that the Police did not file challan against the accused-respondents for the offence under section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act. Both the courts below have not considered this important aspect of the matter. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned judgments and orders passed by both the courts below may be set aside and the accused-respondents may be convicted for offence under section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3 submitted that the learned trial court as well as the learned appellant court after considering the material aspects of the matter have rightly granted the benefit of probation to the accused-respondents. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3 submitted that the learned trial court as well as the learned appellant court after considering the material aspects of the matter have rightly granted the benefit of probation to the accused-respondents. Hence, the orders impugned are perfectly justified and warrant no interference from this Court. 9. I have considered the arguments advanced before me and have carefully gone through the record as also the judgments of the courts below. After registration of the FIR, Police recorded the statement of Ramlal, an eye-witness, who specifically stated that many persons gathered at the Dhaba and only respondent Nos.2 & 3 gave beating to the petitioner and his brother Mahipal. During this scuffle, money and mobile fell down on the ground and later on the complainant found the same at the spot. He further stated that the accused-persons never uttered any abusive words to the petitioner. Likewise statement of Vikram also stated that some quarrel was going on at the Dhaba and money and mobile fell down which were recovered on the spot subsequently and no one used any abusive language. Injured Mahipal also stated in his statement that the respondents gave beating to him. He also stated that mobile and money had fell down which he found later on and no one used any abusive language against the complainant or any other person. Praveen Singh and Arjun Singh also repeated the same story. In view of the statements made by the witnesses, it is apparent that no offence under section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST act is made out against the accused-respondents. The courts below after considering the material aspects of the matter have passed the orders impugned. The courts below also rightly extended the benefit of probation to the accused-respondents. The order passed by the Appellate Court enhancing the compensation amount to Rs. 5,000/- each for disbursement to the complainant/injured is also justified and requires no interference. 10. It is informed by the counsel for the accused-respondents that the accused-respondents have already deposited the amount of Rs. 5,000/- each as ordered by the courts below. 11. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion, the revision petition fails and is dismissed accordingly. 12. Record of the case be sent back forthwith.