Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Nanda Ram And Anr vs State And Ors. (2025:Rj-Jd:1338) on 8 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:1338]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 646/2006
1. Nunda Ram S/o Shiv Bux
2. Bahanwar Lal S/o Chothuram
Both B/c Kumhar, R/o Paloda, Tehsil Nawa, District Nagaur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Ugmaram S/o Moolaram Kumawat
3. Mularam S/o Laxman Ram Kumawat,
4. Bodulal S/o Shyojiram Kumhar,
5. Bhanwarlal S/o Shyojiram Kumhar
Respondent Nos.2 to 5 are R/o Village Palada, Tehsil Nawa,
District Nagaur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Mehta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
Mr. OP Choudhary
Mr. Rajat Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment 08/01/2025 Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against judgment and order dated 20.06.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbatsar, in Cr. Appeal No.17/1999 whereby, the learned appellate court partly allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused-petitioners from offence under Section 326/149 IPC but while maintaining their conviction for offences under Section 324, 324/149, 323, 323/149, 148 IPC, passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kuchaman vide judgment dated 18.03.1999, set aside the (Downloaded on 13/01/2025 at 09:29:53 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:1338] (2 of 4) [CRLR-646/2006] sentence and instead extended the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioners.
Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up is that 21.07.1982, complainant Bodulal submitted a written report at Police Station Kuchaman City to the effect that when he along with other persons was going towards his house from Railway Station, at that time, the accused persons came armed with farsi and lathis and caused injuries to Mularam, Ugmaram, Bhanwar Lal and the complainant. On the said report, Police registered a case against the accused persons and started investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the accused persons including the petitioners. Thereafter, the trial court framed charges for offences under Sections 326, 324, 323, 147, 148 IPC. The accused persons including the petitioners pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited certain documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused persons including the petitioners were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 18.03.1999 convicted and sentenced the accused persons including the petitioners for aforesaid offences.
Being aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the accused persons including the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be partly allowed vide judgment dated 20.06.2006 and the learned appellate court acquitted the accused-petitioners from offence (Downloaded on 13/01/2025 at 09:29:53 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:1338] (3 of 4) [CRLR-646/2006] under Section 326/149 IPC but while maintaining their conviction for offences under Section 324, 324/149, 323, 323/149, 148 IPC, passed by the trial court, set aside the sentence and instead extended the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioners. Hence, this revision petition on behalf of the petitioners against their conviction for the aforesaid offences.
Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the learned courts below have committed error in passing the impugned judgments. While passing the judgments, the courts below have failed to appreciate the fact that as per the statements of the prosecution witnesses, it is a case of free fight and everybody was responsible for his own act. So far as the present petitioners are concerned, no overt-act has been attributed to them. The petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case due to animosity in respect of a land dispute. Counsel further submits that there are major contradictions, omissions and improvements in the statements of the eye-witnesses and thus the prosecution has completely failed to prove its case. Hence, the impugned judgments passed by the courts below deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and learned counsel for the injured have vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that learned courts below have rightly convicted the accused-petitioners for aforesaid offences. Thus, the impugned judgments do not warrant any interference. (Downloaded on 13/01/2025 at 09:29:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:1338] (4 of 4) [CRLR-646/2006] I have considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments passed by this Courts below and gone through the record of the case.
On perusal of the impugned judgments of the courts below as well as record of the case, it appears that while passing the impugned judgments, the learned courts below have considered each and every aspect of the matter and also considered the evidence produced before them in right perspective. The prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the petitioners before the courts below and thus the learned courts below have rightly convicted the accused- petitioners for the aforesaid offences. The learned appellate court partly allowed the appeal of the petitioners and while maintaining their conviction, extended them the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The judgments passed by the courts below are detailed and reasoned order. Thus, this Court does not find any illegality and perversity in the impugned judgments.
In the light of aforesaid discussion, the petitioners have 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 judgments under challenge.
Accordingly, the revision petition is hereby dismissed. Record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 13-Ishan/-
(Downloaded on 13/01/2025 at 09:29:53 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)