Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Ganga Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:2227) on 14 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:2227]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2120/2024
1. Ganga Ram S/o Shri Gopilal, Aged About 77 Years, R/o
Sendra, P.s. Sendra, Dist. Pali,raj.
2. Bhagwati Devi W/o Shri Ganga Ram, Aged About 70
Years, R/o Sendra, P.s. Sendra, Dist. Pali,raj.
3. Dinesh Kumar S/o Shri Ganga Ram, Aged About 52 Years,
R/o Sendra, P.s. Sendra, Dist. Pali,raj.
4. Lait Kumar S/o Shri Ganga Ram, Aged About 47 Years, R/
o Sendra, P.s. Sendra, Dist. Pali,raj.
5. Miss Sheetal D/o Shri Ganga Ram, Aged About 46 Years,
R/o Sendra, P.s. Sendra, Dist. Pali,raj.
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Smt. Maya W/o Chote Lal, R/o Sendra, P.s. Sendra, Dist.
Pali,raj.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Narendra Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Singh, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
14/01/2025
The appellants have filed the present criminal appeal being
aggrieved by the judgment dt. 15.10.2024 passed by the learned
Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Pali in
Sessions Case No. 87/2016 whereby, the trial court while
convicting the present appellants for offence under Sections 143,
341, 323 IPC, granted benefit of probation under Section 4 of
Probation of Offenders Act and directed the appellants to pay fine
in the sum of Rs. 200/- each.
(Downloaded on 20/01/2025 at 09:22:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:2227] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-2120/2024]
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant filed a
written report before the SHO, Police Station Sendara, District Pali
against the accused appellants stating therein that on 12.11.2015,
the acused persons armed with lathi forcibly entered into her
house and beaten her and family members due to which they
sustained injuries. It was also alleged that the accused appellants
used caste abusive language and threatened to kill them.
On the basis of the report, the police registered FIR No.
242/2015, at Police Station Sendara for offence under Sections
143, 452, 354 IPC and Section 3(1)(x), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Corruption) Act. The chargesheet was presented in
the court against the accused persons. Thereafter, charges were
framed against the appellants for offence under Sections 143,
341, 323/149 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act.
After conclusion of trial, the court below acquitted the
appellants from offence under Section Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act but convicted the appellants for
offence under Sections 143, 341 and 323 IPC and granted benefit
of probation under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act vide
judgment dated 15.10.2024.
Counsel for the appellants submits that the trial court
without examining the appreciating the evidence available on
record, found the appellants guilty for the offence under Sections
143, 341 and 323 IPC. It is argued that a false and concocted
case has been registered against the appellants due to previous
enmity. There are material contradictions in the statement of
(Downloaded on 20/01/2025 at 09:22:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:2227] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-2120/2024]
witnesses who are interested witnesses and the prosecution has
failed to prove that the appellants entered into house of
complainant, assaulted the complainant and caused harm to body.
Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the accused
may be acquitted from the alleged offences.
Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer
made by the appellants and argued that the trial court after taking
into consideration the nature of offence, has rightly convicted the
appellant and imposed the fine which does not call for any
interference.
I have heard the counsel for the appellants and gone through
the material on record.
From the evidence on record so also finding arrived by the
learned trial court, it appears that the learned trial court has
convicted the appellants on the basis of statements of the
witnesses so also other documents. The courts below came to the
conclusion by way of detailed and speaking order that the
prosecution has proved the charges against the appellants beyond
reasonable doubt. However, looking to the fact that there are no
criminal antecedents against the appellants, the court has granted
the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of
Offenders Act.
After considering the evidence available on record, this Court
is of the opinion that the trial court has not committed any error in
convicting the accused appellants and granting benefit of
(Downloaded on 20/01/2025 at 09:22:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:2227] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-2120/2024]
probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present
criminal appeal has no substance and the same is hereby
dismissed.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
26-BJSH/-
(Downloaded on 20/01/2025 at 09:22:57 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)