Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mitra Pal Singh vs State Of Raj And Ors on 11 April, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 153/2000
Mitra Pal Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chandraveer Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rajpurohit, PP
Mr. R.L. Saraswat
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
11/04/2022
1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread
of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being
maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety
of all concerned.
2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. has
been preferred against the judgment dated 24.02.2000 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Jodhpur in Criminal
Case No.55/1998, whereby the respondent No.3-Balu Ram has
been acquitted and the respondent No.2 Chunni Lal was extended
the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 under Section 360
Cr.P.C.; the allegations were levelled for the offences under
Sections 307 & 341 IPC.
3. The brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by the
learned counsel for the petitioner are that a written report was
lodged by complainant-Mitra Pal Singh (petitioner herein) before
(Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 08:29:51 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLR-153/2000]
the Police Station, Pratap Nagar Jodhpur, alleging therein that the
alleged incident had occurred by the accused persons in
aggression, during the course of which an injury was also caused
by spade on his head. It was also alleged that as a result of such a
deliberate criminal act on the part of the accused persons, the
petitioner's brother received a severe injury on the head; on the
basis of the said report, an FIR was registered for the offences
under Sections 341, 322, 325 & 307/34 IPC, followed by filing of
charge-sheet for the said offences.
4. At the outset, learned Public Prosecutor informs the Court
that respondent No.3-Balu Ram had already expired, which is
reflected from the report dated 11.04.2022. The said report is
taken on record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter,
the learned trial court framed charges against the accused persons
for the offences under Sections 307, 341 & 307/34 IPC; however,
vide the impugned judgment, the learned trial court acquitted the
respondent No.3 of the charges levelled against him, whereas, the
respondent No.2 was given the benefit of doubt, while observing
that the offence committed by the said respondent was under
Section 325 IPC.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
learned trial court, without due appreciation of the material
available on record, including the one pertaining to substantiate
the fact that the injury caused by the accused persons upon the
head of the petitioner's brother was sufficient to cause death.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
submits that the learned trial court has passed the impugned
judgment after an appreciation of the facts and circumstances of
(Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 08:29:51 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLR-153/2000]
the case, and the relevant evidences based on record. And that,
therefore, it does not suffer from any legal infirmity.
8. Heard learned counsel for both parties, and perused the
record of the case.
9. This Court, at the outset, observes that the impugned
judgment has rightly granted the benefit under the Act of 1958 to
the respondent No.2-Chunni Lal, while observing that the offence
under Section 325 IPC does not require immediate conviction and
sentence, as also the fact that there are no previous criminal
antecedents against the said respondent. The learned trial court
has also kept into consideration the facts and circumstances as
also the material available on record to acquit the respondent
No.3-Balu Ram, while extending him the benefit of doubt.
10. On a consideration of the overall facts and circumstances of
the case, this Court does not find any reason so as to make any
interference in the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial
court.
11. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending
applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below
be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
54-Zeeshan
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
