[2023:RJ-JD:34573]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 735/2003
1. Ramswaroop s/o Himta Ram, r/o Village Arniala, Tehsil
Merta, District Nagaur
2. Prabu Ram s/o Ramdeen, r/o Village Arniala, Tehsil Merta,
District Nagaur
3. Himta Ram s/o Ramdeen, r/o Village Arniala, Tehsil Merta,
District Nagaur
4. Rameshwar Lal s/o Pabu Ram, r/o Village Arniala, Tehsil
Merta, District Nagaur
5. Chena Ram s/o Himta Ram, r/o Village Arniala, Tehsil
Merta, District Nagaur
----Petitioners
Versus
State of Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.G.R.Poonia, Sr.Advocate
Dr.Shanti Choudhary.
For Respondent(s) : Mohd.Javed Gauri, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
04/10/2023 As per prosecution, one Tulsi Ram submitted a written report at PS Padu Kallan, on 07.07.1998, at about 9:03 am, stating inter alia that his sister was sweeping the house when the revisionists- petitioners entered into the house and started beating her and also dragged her out of the house. As per prosecution, when the complainant's father tried to intervene, the revisionists-petitioners started beating him also. In the aforesaid incident, revisionist- petitioner- Rameshwar inflicted injury on the left leg of the father of the complainant by kuwaria. Learned trial Magistrate after (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 06:52:59 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:34573] (2 of 4) [CRLR-735/2003] examining 11 prosecution witnesses and revisionist-petitioner Rameshwarlal in defence, convicted the revisionists-petitioners as under:-
i) Rameshwarlal Sections Sentence 148 imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and ordered to undergo 1 months' SI in its default 341 15 days SI 323 3 months SI 324 6 months SI 325/149 2 years' SI and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in its default thereof, ordered to undergo 2 months' SI.
ii) Ramswaroop, Pabu Ram, Himta Ram and Chena Ram Sections Sentence 148 imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and ordered to undergo 1 months' SI in its default 341 15 days SI 323 3 months SI 324/149 6 months SI 325/149 2 years' SI and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in its default thereof, ordered to undergo 2 months' SI. The revisionists-petitioners being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, preferred an appeal before the appellate court. The appellate court vide judgment dated 07.06.2003, partly allowed the appeal, while maintaining the conviction, allowed the benefit of probation and ordered to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.600/- each, payable to the injured persons.
Learned counsel further submitted that the operation of the judgment dated 7.6.2003 passed by learned appellate court below (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 06:52:59 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:34573] (3 of 4) [CRLR-735/2003] was stayed by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 8.7.2004.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionists-petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record of the case.
A perusal of the orders impugned and the record makes it evident that the alleged incident happened in the year 1998. Having gone through the record of the case, this Court finds that there are various contradictions in the story narrated by the prosecution witnesses during trial. The incident appears to have happened on a trivial issue of removing some stones kept in front of the nohra of Pabu Ram. Injured Shiv Ram had not spoken anything about the revisionist-petitioner Rameshwar Lal and had stated that injuries were inflicted by Ram Ratan and Pabu Ram. Similarly, Ram Ratan son of Pabu Ram, allegedly inflicted injuries upon Shiv Ram. The Court finds that contradictions in the statements of Shiv Ram, makes him an unreliable witness as Ram Ratan has not even been made an accused in the case. This Court also finds that the prosecution story is absolutely doubtful as there is no independent eye-witness, though the incident had happened in an open area during broad daylight and there is cross case between the parties. This Court also finds that the trial case has not decided the cross cases together and thus, the case of revisionist-petitioners getting prejudiced cannot be ruled out. The appellate court has also failed to consider these legal and factual aspects in the appeal and thereby, committed illegality in maintaining the conviction.
In the result, the present revision petition is allowed. The judgments dated 04.04.2002 and 07.06.2003, passed by learned (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 06:52:59 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:34573] (4 of 4) [CRLR-735/2003] Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Merta and learned Special Special Judge, SC/ST Cases Court, Merta are quashed and set aside. The revisionists-petitioners stand discharged of all the charges levelled against them by the prosecution.
All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the case be sent back to the learned court below forthwith.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J /tarun goyal/ Sr.No.26 (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 06:52:59 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)