[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Raj Mal vs State And Ors. (2025:Rj-Jd:33162) on 28 July, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:33162]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 922/2012
Raj Mal S/o Shri Bheem Ji, Aged about 32 years, Resident of
Village Bori, Police Station Peepalkhunth, District Pratapgarh,
Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor
2. Gautam S/o Shri Bhanji Meena,
3. Narain S/o Shri Bhanji Meena,
4. Mangala S/o Shri Bhanji Meena,
5. Panchu @ Panchu Ram S/o Shri Mangala Meena,
6. Gattu S/o Shri Mangala Meena,
7. Prakash S/o Shri Mangala Meena,
All are residents of Village Bori, Police Station Peepalkunth,
District Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shambhoo Singh Rathore
Mr. Hitendra Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG
Mr. K.S. Kumpawat, AAAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
28/07/2025
1. Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant-
complainant under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. and Section 11 of
Probation Offenders Act against judgment dated 23.07.2012
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge,
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity Cases), Pratapgarh in Sessions Case
No.19/2010 whereby, the learned trial Judge acquitted the
accused-respondents No.2 to 7 from offence under Section
308/149 of IPC and while convicting them for offences under
Sections 147, 341, 323/149, 324/149 & 325/149 of IPC, learned
trial court extended them the benefit of probation under Section 4
(Downloaded on 31/07/2025 at 09:39:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33162] (2 of 5) [CRLA-922/2012]
of Probation of Offenders Act. The trial court also imposed a fine of
Rs.5,000/- upon each of Respondents No. 2 to 7, amounting to a
total of Rs.30,000/-, pursuant to Section 5(b) of the Act. The said
fine was directed to be disbursed as compensation in the following
manner: Rs.10,000/- to the injured Keshrimal, Rs.7,000/- to the
injured Bharat Singh, Rs.4,000/- to the injured Rajmal and
Rs.3,000/- to the injured Reena @ Ratan.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up is that on
02.03.2010, complainant Raj submitted a written report to the
Police while he was admitted at Mahatma Gandhi Hospital,
Banswara to the effect that when he was returning to his house
along with his brothers Bharat Singh, Keshrimal and his niece
Reena @ Ratan, the accused-respondent Nos.2-7 came armed
with lathis, swords & stones and assaulted them. On the said
report, Police registered a case against the accused respondents
and started investigation.
3. On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused respondent Nos.2 to 7. Thereafter, the trial
court framed charges for offences under Sections 147, 341, 323,
324/149, 325/149, 148 & 308/149 of IPC. The accused
respondent Nos.2 to 7 pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as 10 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited certain
documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused respondents
were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.
5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 23.07.2012 acquitted the accused-
(Downloaded on 31/07/2025 at 09:39:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33162] (3 of 5) [CRLA-922/2012]
respondent Nos.2 to 7 from offence under Section 308/149 IPC
and while convicting them for offences under Sections 147, 341,
323/149, 324/149 & 325/149 of IPC, extended the benefit of
probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
Hence, this appeal on behalf of the complainant/appellant.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant submits that
the learned trial court has committed grave error in acquitting the
accused-respondents from offence under Section 308/149 of IPC
and in giving benefit of probation for offences under Sections 147,
341, 323, 323/149, 324, 324/149 & 325/149 of IPC despite the
fact that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable
doubts. Counsel submits that there is ample evidence available on
record against the accused-respondents for commission of offence
punishable under Section 308/149 of IPC. Yet, the trial court did
not consider these aspects of the matter and acquitted the
accused respondents from offence under Section 308/149 of IPC.
Further, despite conviction, the learned trial court gave benefit of
probation under Section 4 of the Act to the accused-respondents,
which is per se illegal. Thus, it is prayed that the impugned
judgment may be quashed to the extent of acquitting the accused-
respondents from offence under Section 308/149 of IPC and
giving benefit of probation to the accused-respondents for the
offences under Sections 147, 341, 323/149, 324/149 & 325/149.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on the
judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Manohar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors, reported in
2015 AIR SCW 928.
(Downloaded on 31/07/2025 at 09:39:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33162] (4 of 5) [CRLA-922/2012]
8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for
the appellant and perused the impugned judgment of the trial
court and also gone through the entire material available on
record.
9. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the
prosecution has failed to produce any evidence against the
accused-respondents in respect of the commission of offence
under Section 308/149 of IPC. While passing the impugned order,
learned trial court has considered each and every aspect of the
matter and thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-
respondents from offence under 308/149 of IPC.
10. So far as the benefit of probation extended to the accused-
respondents for the offences under Sections 147, 341, 323/149,
324/149 & 325/149 IPC is concerned, the learned trial court has
held that the accused-respondents have been facing trial since
long and there are no other criminal antecedents against them
and this was the first offence of the accused-respondents. Taking
into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial court has rightly
extended the benefit of Probation under Section 4 of the Act to the
accused-respondents for the offences under Sections 147, 341,
323/149, 324/149 & 325/149 IPC. Thus, there is no illegality and
perversity in the impugned judgment and the same is just and
proper. Further, the case cited by the counsel for the
complainant/appellant altogether different from the present case
in hand.
(Downloaded on 31/07/2025 at 09:39:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33162] (5 of 5) [CRLA-922/2012]
10. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the appellant has 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 judgment
under challenge.
11. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is hereby dismissed.
12. Record of the court below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
94-GKaviya/-
(Downloaded on 31/07/2025 at 09:39:09 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link