Kantilal vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 10133 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 373/2021

Kantilal S/o Shri Ramlal, Aged About 57 Years, Village Rampuriya, Police Station Deogarh, District Pratapgarh.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

2. Gangaram S/o Shri Chain Singh, Village Rampuraiya, Police Station Deogarh, District Pratapgarh.

3. Narayan S/o Shri Chain Singh, Village Rampuraiya, Police Station Deogarh, District Pratapgarh.

4. Chain Singh S/o Shri Rama, Village Rampuraiya, Police Station Deogarh, District Pratapgarh.

5. Gautam S/o Shri Rama, Village Rampuraiya, Police Station Deogarh, District Pratapgarh.

6. Ramlal S/o Shri Arjun, Village Rampuraiya, Police Station Deogarh, District Pratapgarh.

7. Santu @ Shantilal S/o Shri Mohan, Village Rampuraiya, Police Station Deogarh, District Pratapgarh.

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. Ramesh Purohit
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, P.P.



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

                                    Order

06/07/2021

           The   instant       revision    has      been        preferred   by   the

petitioner complainant Kantilal for assailing the judgment dated

01.02.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgrah in

victim's appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 372 CrPC,

whereby the appellate court partly accepted the appeal of the

petitioner and while setting aside the judgment dated 15.07.2016

(2 of 3) [CRLR-373/2021]

passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Pratapgarh in Criminal Case No.165/2014 acquitting the

respondents from the charges under Sections 147, 341, 323, 325

and 149 IPC, they were convicted for these offences and were

extended the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and

compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/- each was imposed on

them. The said order of the appellate court is assailed by the

petitioner claiming that the appellate court ought not to have

extended the benefit of probation to the respondents and rather

they should have been awarded appropriate sentence for the

offences alleged.

I have heard and considered the submissions advanced

by Mr. Ramesh Purohit, learned counsel representing the petitioner

complainant, and have gone through the judgment passed by the

court's below.

Suffice it to say that the offence under Section 325 IPC,

for which the respondents have been convicted, carries the

maximum sentence of 7 years and thus, the provisions of

Probation of Offenders Act were definitely applicable to the

respondents herein. There is no dispute that the respondents

herein had no criminal history. On a perusal of the statement of

the petitioner complainant Kanti Lal, who was examined as P.W.1,

it is clear that he made wholesale exaggerations by alleging that

Narayan chopped off his hands and legs by an axe. As per the

medical evidence based on the deposition of the Dr. Hitesh Joshi

(P.W.3), the injuries noticed on the body of the injured were all

caused by blunt weapon.

In this background, manifestly, there was a significant

contradiction in the ocular testimony vis-a-vis the medical

(3 of 3) [CRLR-373/2021]

testimony. In spite thereof, the acquittal of the respondents was

reversed by the appellate court in the victim's appeal under

Section 372 CrPC. Therefore, I am of the view that there is no

illegality or irregularity in the appellate court's judgment to the

extent of extending the benefit of probation to the respondents

after convicting them as above. However, before parting, it would

be appropriate to direct the District Legal Services Authority,

Pratapgarh to consider grant of maximum permissible

compensation to the petitioner complainant under the Victim

Compensation Scheme, 2011.

The revision is dismissed with the above observations.

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

34-Pramod/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)