Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Dallaram And Anr vs State on 17 June, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:26772]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 672/2007
Gumana Ram @ Gumna Ram S/o Mishra Ram Aged 51 years, B/
c Mali R/o Village Pipar Shahar, P.S. Pipar Shahar District Jodhpur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan
2. Dalla Ram S/o Mishra Ram
3. Hanuman Ram S/o Dalla Ram both B/c Mali R/o Village Gokul
Bera, Pipar Shahar, P.S. Pipar Shahar District Jodhpur
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1086/2006
2. Dalla Ram S/o Mishra Ram
3. Hanuman Ram S/o Dalla Ram both B/c Mali R/o Village Gokul
Bera, Pipar Shahar, P.S. Pipar Shahar District Jodhpur
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohit Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA
Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
Ms. Sampiti Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
ORDER RESERVED ON ::: 21/05/2025
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON ::: 17/06/2025
BY THE COURT:-
1. These two matters–Criminal Revision No.672/2007 and
Criminal Appeal No.1086/2006–have been filed against the
judgment dated 04.12.2006, passed by the learned Additional
(Downloaded on 19/06/2025 at 10:01:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:26772] (2 of 4) [CRLR-672/2007]
Sessions Judge, Fast Track No.1, Jodhpur, in Sessions Case
No.63/2006. By the said judgment, the learned Trial Court
convicted the accused persons for lesser offences and extended to
them the benefit of probation instead of imposing immediate
custodial sentences.
2. The revision petition (Criminal Revision No.672/2007) has been
filed by the complainant/victim, challenging the acquittal of the
accused from the charge under Section 307 IPC and also
aggrieved by the extension of benefit of probation. In Criminal
Appeal No.1086/2006, the accused-appellants have challenged the
finding of guilt and sought complete acquittal.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
judgment under challenge as well as the record of the case.
3.1. The factual background of the case reveals that an FIR,
Exhibit P-1, was lodged on 29.12.2005 by PW-2 Sukhram, son of
the victim petitioner Gumana Ram, alleging that the accused-
respondents–who are the appellants in Criminal Appeal
No.1086/2006–assaulted the victim. After due investigation, the
accused were charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 323,
341, 325, 307, 447 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The case was
committed to the Court of Sessions where the learned Trial Court
framed charges accordingly.
3.2. During the trial, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses
and produced sixteen documents in evidence. The accused were
examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they denied the
allegations. In defence, the accused produced two witnesses,
DW-1 Sugnaram and DW-2 Gobarram.
(Downloaded on 19/06/2025 at 10:01:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:26772] (3 of 4) [CRLR-672/2007]
3.3. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned Trial Court
concluded that an incident did indeed occur and that the victim
sustained injuries. However, the Trial Court found that the
requisite intent to kill, which is essential for an offence under
Section 307 IPC, was absent. The incident was held to be a
sudden outburst arising from a familial dispute between siblings
owning adjacent agricultural lands. The Court also noted that
there was no premeditation or animosity of a degree that would
suggest an intention to kill. Accordingly, the accused were
acquitted of the charge under Section 307 IPC and were instead
convicted under Sections 341, 323, 325, and 447 IPC.
4. Having carefully examined the findings of the Trial Court, this
Court finds no reason to interfere with the acquittal under Section
307 IPC. The Trial Court has meticulously considered the nature of
the injuries, number of injuries, kind of weapon used, the part of
the body chosen for inflicting injury to the victim and, most
importantly, the absence of any prior motive, pre-concert or pre-
planned attack. Exhibit P-16 shows only a simple fracture. In the
circumstances, the acquittal of the accused from the charge under
Section 307 IPC is a well-reasoned and justified conclusion,
warranting no interference by this Court.
5. On the question of sentence, it is pertinent to note that the
accused have no previous criminal antecedents. Considering the
suddenness of the incident, the familial relationship between the
parties, the relatively minor nature of the injuries, and the
applicability of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act,
the learned Trial Court rightly adopted a reformative approach.
(Downloaded on 19/06/2025 at 10:01:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:26772] (4 of 4) [CRLR-672/2007]
The benefit of probation was extended, and compensation was
also awarded to the victim.
6. This Court does not find any perversity, illegality, or material
irregularity in the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court. The
judgment is reasoned and based on sound appreciation of facts
and law. The accused appellants have failed to point out any
significant legal defect or inconsistency capable of casting doubt
on the prosecution’s case.
7. Consequently, both Criminal Revision No. 672/2007 and
Criminal Appeal No. 1086/2006 are found to be devoid of merit
and are accordingly dismissed. The judgment and order passed by
the learned Trial Court are affirmed.
8. Record be sent back to the Trial Court forthwith.
(FARJAND ALI),J
15-Mamta/-
(Downloaded on 19/06/2025 at 10:01:00 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)