Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 61 (RAJ)

Devkishan v. State of Rajasthan

2019-01-04

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 09.08.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahpura, District Bhilwara whereby the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and affirmed the order dated 11.01.2017 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahpura, District Bhilwara whereby the learned Trial Court convicted the petitioner for offence under Sections 341, 323, 504 IPC and gave the benefit of Probation under Section 4(1) of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that while convicting the petitioner for the aforesaid offences, the learned courts below have not properly considered the material aspect of the case as no offence under Sections 341, 323, 504 IPC is made out against the petitioner. Hence the orders impugned deserve to be set aside. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 have supported the orders impugned and submits that there is no illegality or perversity in the orders impugned as the courts below have passed the same after due appreciation of the material available on record, hence no interference is called for from this Court and prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders impugned of the courts below. 5. From perusal of the orders impugned, it is apparent that the while passing the orders impugned, the learned courts below have considered each and every aspect of the matter and rightly convicted the petitioner for the aforesaid offence. This is a finding of concurrent court, because firstly trial court considered the matter, thereafter the appellate court also seen the record then dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. In these circumstances, I find no perversity or manifest error in the orders impugned. The orders impugned are just and proper and do not warrant any interference from this Court. 6. Consequently, the revision petition hereby is dismissed.