Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 390 (RAJ)

Salim Khan v. State of Rajasthan

2025-02-17

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2025
ORDER : (MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.) Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against judgment and order dated 26.07.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, in Cr. Appeal No.10/2020 whereby, the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and order dated 18.12.2019, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arnod, District Pratapgarh, in Cr. Case No.24/2014 (5255/2014), whereby the learned trial court while convicting the petitioners for offences under Sections 148, 341, 323/149 IPC, gave benefit of Probation under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioners. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up is that an FIR No.278/2013 was lodged at PS Anord by the complainants with the allegations that the accused-petitioners assaulted them. After thorough investigation, Police filed charge-sheet under Sections 148, 341, 323, 324/149 IPC. Thereafter, the trial court framed charges against the accused petitioners, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited certain documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused petitioners were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. 4. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 18.12.2019 convicted the petitioners for offences under Sections 148, 341, 323/149 IPC, but gave them benefit of Probation under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. 5. Being aggrieved by their conviction, the accused petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 26.07.2022. Hence, this revision petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the courts below have committed grave error in convicting the petitioners for aforesaid offences as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable court. Counsel submits that there are material contradictions, omissions & improvements in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the prosecution did not produce any independent witness of the incident. Thus, it is prayed that the impugned judgments passed by the courts below may be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainants have vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that learned courts below have rightly convicted the accused-petitioners for aforesaid offences. Thus, the impugned judgments do not warrant any interference. 8. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainants have vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that learned courts below have rightly convicted the accused-petitioners for aforesaid offences. Thus, the impugned judgments do not warrant any interference. 8. I have considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments passed by this Courts below and gone through the record of the case. 9. On perusal of the impugned judgments of the courts below as well as record of the case, it appears that while passing the impugned judgments, the learned courts below have considered each and every aspect of the matter and also considered the evidence produced before them in right perspective. The prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the petitioners before the courts below and thus the learned courts below have rightly convicted the accused- petitioners for the aforesaid offences. The judgments passed by the courts below are detailed and reasoned order and thus, this court is not inclined to interfere in the concurrent findings given by the courts below. 10. 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 judgments under challenge. So far as, the petitioners have been given benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Offenders Act by the courts below and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are granted benefit under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 11. Accordingly, the revision petition is hereby dismissed. 12. Stay application is also dismissed. 13. Record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.