HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 808/2002
Bhanwar Lal S/o Shri Bhajja by caste Dangi, R/o Sindhu Thana,
Tehsil Mawli, District Udaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Purohit, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
Judgment pronounced on : 29/09/2023
Judgment reserved on : 19/07/2023
By the Court :
1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397/401 CrPC, challenge has been made to the judgment dated 11.06.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Udaipur in Criminal appeal No.32/2001, whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.09.2001 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mawli, District Udaipur in Criminal Regular Case No.306/1997; whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the offences under Sections 323 and 341 IPC and a fine of Rs.1000/- and Rs.100/- respectively for these counts has been imposed upon the petitioner, with further stipulation that in the event of default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment of 11 days.
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 06:42:21 AM)
(2 of 6) [CRLR-808/2002]
2. Bereft of elaborate details, the facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant revision are that on 10.09.1995, one Barda S/o Pema submitted a report (Ex.P/1) to the effect that in the morning of that day at around 07.00 a.m. his wife Mangi was going to well for bringing fodder. On the way, near Bavji Ki Vani, Bhanwar Lal S/o Bhajja, who was wearing only an underwear, accosted her, caught her hand, pulled her and blabbered in obscene language proclaiming his intent to outrage her modesty. She freed her hand, upon which the accused slapped her and gave a blow with a stick on her waist and started scuffling with her. She raised her voice, hearing which the complainant ran to the place of incident and snatched the stick from the accused. Radhu Ba and Devi Lal also came to the spot. Mangi received injuries on her face and waist in the incident.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, FIR No.158/1995 was registered at the Police Station Mawali and investigation was commenced. The police reached the place of incident, prepared the spot documents, recorded the statements of the witnesses and got the victim medically examined. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet for the offences under Sections 341 and 323 came to be filed against the petitioner in the Court of Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Mawali, from where the case was transferred to the trial court.
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 06:42:21 AM)
(3 of 6) [CRLR-808/2002]
4. The learned trial court framed charges against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 341 and 323 IPC and read over the same to the accused, upon which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in order to prove its case, examined 5 witnesses, namely, Mangi Bai (P.W.1), Varda (P.W.2), Devi Lal (P.W.3), Bholi Ram (P.W.4) and Vakta (P.W.5) and exhibited documents Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/4.
6. The accused, upon being confronted with the prosecution allegations, in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent. He submitted that the complainant party had beaten him two days before the incident and he had reported the incident to the police and for that reason he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He did not examine any witness in defence but exhibited 8 documents from Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/8. Then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial court convicted the accused for offences under Sections 341 and 323 IPC vide judgment dated 12.09.2001. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated 11.06.2002 while affirming the judgment passed by the trial court. Hence, this revision petition is preferred before this court. (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 06:42:21 AM)
(4 of 6) [CRLR-808/2002]
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case due to previous enmity. 2 out of 5 witnesses have been declared hostile. There are various contradictions in the statements of the complainant Varda (P.W.2) and his wife Mangi (P.W.1). The prosecution has not examined the Investigating Officer and the Medical Officer, who prepared the injury report (Ex.P/2) of the victim. The prosecution has failed to prove occurrence of the incident by producing sufficient evidence on record. Thus, the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court have committed an error of law in appreciating the evidence brought on record. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned judgments may be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may be acquitted from the charges.
8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that there are concurrent findings of the two courts of competent jurisdiction on the point of guilt of the petitioner. The prosecution has been able to prove the offences alleged against the petitioner beyond any reasonable doubt and despite that, the learned trial court has taken a lenient view while awarding punishment and has just imposed fine upon the petitioner instead of awarding him jail term. Hence, no interference is called for in the impugned judgments. (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 06:42:21 AM)
(5 of 6) [CRLR-808/2002]
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor at length and have gone through the record of the case.
10. The learned trial court has meticulously examined and discussed the evidence brought on the record and has given a finding that though two of the prosecution witnesses have been declared hostile, but based on the statements of the witnesses, the prosecution has been able to prove the occurrence and commission of offences by the petitioner. The trial court has noted that it is true that the Investigating Officer and the Medical Officer were not examined during trial, but nonetheless the prosecution story is fully corroborated by the injury report (Ex.P/2) and other documents placed on record. Regarding previous enmity and false implication, the learned trial court has observed that rivalry is a double-edged sword and it is also a possibility that the accused committed the offence due to such enmity. The learned trial court despite recording finding of guilt against the accused has taken a lenient view and instead of sentencing him to undergo imprisonment, has just imposed fine upon him. The learned appellate court on a reappraisal of the evidence, agreed with the findings recorded by the trial court and confirmed the conviction and the punishment awarded. Thus, there are concurrent findings of two courts of competent jurisdiction regarding culpability of the accused petitioners. It is a well-settled position of law that revisional court is loath to interfere with the concurrent findings on facts recorded by the courts below unless glaring features (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 06:42:21 AM) (6 of 6) [CRLR-808/2002] which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice are brought to the notice of the Court. In the case at hand, I find no ground, either legal or factual, which may require interference of this court in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence in exercise of powers under Section 397/401 of the CrPC. I find no illegality, perversity of impropriety in impugned judgments passed by the learned courts below. The revision petition is bereft of any merit and hence, the same is dismissed.
(FARJAND ALI),J Pramod (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 06:42:21 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)