Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1648 (RAJ)

Shivji Ram S/o Mohanram v. State of Rajasthan

2024-12-04

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2024
JUDGMENT : MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J. 1. No one appeared on behalf of the petitioners even in the second round. On the last occasion also i.e. on 15.05.2024, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioners. In these circumstances, this Court appoints Mr. Pallav Sharma, Adv. as amicus curiae in this case to represent the case of the petitioners before this Court. His remuneration shall be paid by the Rajasthan State Legal Service Authorities as per rules. 2. The matter is being finally heard and decided today. 3. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 22.09.2004, passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases and Additional Sessions Judge, Merta in Cr. Appeal No. 22/04 (Old No. 32/2002) whereby the learned appellate court partly allowed the appeal of the accused-respondent Nos. 2 to 9 and while affirming the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate, (First Class), Degana, District Nagaur, dated 11.09.2002 passed in Cr. Case No. 203/1999 to the extent of conviction for offences under Sections 148, 341, 324/149, 323/149 IPC, set aside the sentence and instead gave benefit of probation to the accused-respondent Nos. 2 to 9 under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. The appellate court by its judgment also discharged the accused-respondents No. 2 to 9 from offence under Section 325/149 IPC. 4. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up is that on 13.07.1995, complainant Shivji Ram submitted a written report at Police Station Degana to the effect that in the evening at about 7 PM, the accused respondents came armed with lathi, axe and kasia and started beating him. On shouting, complainant’s family members came to his rescue and the accused-respondents also assaulted the complainant’s family members. On the said report, Police registered a case against the accused-respondents and started investigation. 5. On completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the accused-respondents. Thereafter, the trial court framed charges. The accused-respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses in support of its case and exhibited certain documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused respondents were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, one witness namely Devkaran was examined on behalf of the accused-respondents. 7. The accused-respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses in support of its case and exhibited certain documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused respondents were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, one witness namely Devkaran was examined on behalf of the accused-respondents. 7. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 11.09.2002 convicted and sentenced the accused-respondents for offences under Sections 148, 341, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149 IPC. 8. Being aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the accused-respondents preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be partly allowed vide judgment dated 22.09.2004. The learned appellate court acquitted the accused-respondents from offence under Section 325/149 IPC and while maintaining the conviction of the accused-respondents for the offences under Sections 148, 341, 323/149, 324/149 IPC, set aside the sentence as awarded by the trial court and instead gave benefit of probation to the accused-respondents. Hence, this revision petition on behalf of the petitioners against the judgment of the appellate court. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners-complainant argued that learned appellate court has committed grave error in giving benefit of probation to the accused-respondents for offences under Sections 148, 341, 323/149, 324/149 IPC, despite the fact that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The learned appellate court also committed error in discharging the accused-respondents for offence under Section 325/149 IPC. Counsel submits that there is ample evidence available on record against the accused-respondents for commission of offence. Yet, the appellate court did not consider these aspects of the matter and despite conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court for aforesaid offences to the accused-respondents, the appellate court did not award any sentence and instead gave benefit of probation under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, which is perverse and illegal. Further, despite conviction by the trial court for offence under Section 325/149 IPC, the learned appellate court wrongly discharged the accused-respondents from the said offence. Further, despite conviction by the trial court for offence under Section 325/149 IPC, the learned appellate court wrongly discharged the accused-respondents from the said offence. Thus, it is prayed that the impugned appellate judgment may be quashed and set aside to the extent of discharging the accused-respondents from offence under Section 325/149 IPC and in giving benefit of probation to the accused-respondents for the aforesaid offences under Sections 148, 341, 323/149, 324/149 IPC and the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court for the aforesaid offences may be upheld. 10. Learned counsel for the accused-respondents submits that the judgment passed by the appellate court is just and proper and the same does not warrant any interference from this Court. 11. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the accused-respondents and perused the judgments of the appellate court as well as trial court and also gone through the entire record. 12. The learned trial court, after meticulous appreciation of evidence and considering each and every aspect of the matter, has convicted and sentenced the accused-respondents for offence under Sections 148, 341, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149 IPC. The accused- respondents filed an appeal against their conviction and sentence before the appellate court. The learned appellate court while observing that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence under Section 325/149 IPC against the accused-respondents beyond all reasonable doubt, has discharged them from the said offence. However, the learned appellate court while considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, maintained the conviction of the accused-respondents for offence under Sections 148, 341, 323/149, 324/149 IPC and gave the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 13. On perusal of the impugned judgment of the appellate court, it appears that the learned appellate court has considered each and every aspect of the matter while passing the impugned judgment and has rightly discharged the accused-respondents from offence under Section 325/149 IPC and also rightly extended the benefit of Probation under Section 4 of the Act to them for rest of the offences. Thus, this Court does not find any illegality and perversity in the impugned appellate judgment and the same does not require any interference from this Court. 14. Thus, this Court does not find any illegality and perversity in the impugned appellate judgment and the same does not require any interference from this Court. 14. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the petitioners have failed to show any error of law or on facts on the basis of which interference can be made by this Court in the impugned appellant judgment under challenge. 15. Accordingly, the revision petition is hereby dismissed. 16. Record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.