Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shankar Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:8075) on 15 February, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2024:RJ-JD:8075]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 67/2021
1. Shankar Singh S/o Sh. Chain Singh, Aged About 54
Years, R/o Bhutala Fala, Godawato Ki Bhagal, Police
Station Gogunda, Dist. Udaipur.
2. Smt. Puran Bai W/o Sh. Shankar Singh, Aged About 53
Years, R/o Bhutala Fala, Godawato Ki Bhagal, Police
Station Gogunda, Dist. Udaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Singh Rawal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment 15/02/2024 The instant criminal appeal under Section 11(2) of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 has been filed by the appellants against the judgment dated 23.11.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Udaipur in Sessions Case No.201/2017 (CIS No.153/2017) whereby the learned Judge while convicting the appellants for offences under Sections 341, 323 R/w Section 34 IPC, extended the benefit of Section 4(1) of Probation of Offenders Act. The appellants were directed to be released on probation provided each of them shall furnish personal bond of Rs.10,000/- and a surety bond of the like amount to maintain peace and good behaviour for a period of one year. They were further directed not to repeat the offence and to appear and (Downloaded on 16/02/2024 at 09:57:45 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:8075] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-67/2021] receive the sentence whenever called upon to do so during the period of one year. The trial court also imposed fine of Rs.5,000/- upon each of the appellants, which was ordered to be disbursed to the injured Himmat Singh.
Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up is that 18.06.2015, complainant Devi Singh submitted a written report at Police Station Gogunda, District Udiapur inter-alia alleging therein that when he was going towards his field, on the way the accused- appellants came armed with iron rod and sticks and caused injuries to his son Himmat Singh. On this report, Police registered a case for offences under sections 341, 307, 323 R/w Section 34 IPC against the accused-appellants and commenced investigation.
On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused-appellants. Thereafter, charges of the case were framed for offences under Sections 341, 323, 308 R/w Section 34 IPC, which they denied and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses and got exhibited various documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused appellants were recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C.
After considering the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the material available on record, the trial court vide judgment dated 23.11.2020 convicted the appellants for offences under Sections 341, 323 R/w Section 34 IPC, but extended the benefit under Section 4(1) of Probation of Offenders Act and imposed fine of Rs.5,000/- upon each of the appellants.
Hence, this criminal appeal.
(Downloaded on 16/02/2024 at 09:57:45 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:8075] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-67/2021] Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the trial court has committed grave error in convicting and sentencing the appellants for aforesaid offences as there are material contradictions, omissions & improvements in the statements of the witnesses. Thus, it is prayed that the impugned judgment convicting the appellants may be quashed and set aside.
Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that against appellant No.1 Shankar Singh as many as eight cases were registered and there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution evidence. Learned trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants for the aforesaid offences. He prayed that the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court may be sustained and sentence awarded to the accused-appellants be maintained by this Court.
I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the accused-appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also gone through the entire record.
From the findings recorded by the trial Court, I am satisfied that the accused-appellants have rightly been convicted and sentenced for offence under Sections 341, 323 R/w Section 34 IPC by the trial court and extended the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offender Act while directing them to maintain peace and good behaviour for a period of one year. The said period of one year has satisfactorily been passed by the appellants. The appellants have also deposited the fine amount as imposed by the trial court. Thus, this Court does not find any illegality and (Downloaded on 16/02/2024 at 09:57:45 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:8075] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-67/2021] perversity in the impugned judgment and the same does not require any interference from this Court.
Accordingly, the criminal appeal is hereby dismissed. The trial court is directed to disburse the fine amount as deposited by the appellants, in favour of the injured Himmat Singh.
The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 35-MS/-
(Downloaded on 16/02/2024 at 09:57:45 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)