State vs Jeetu Ram And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 7006 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 419/2001

Deva Ram

----Petitioner Versus State And Ors

----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 850/2001 State

----Petitioner Versus Jeetu Ram And Ors

----Respondent

For Com/Pet.(s) : Mr. R.K. Soni

For State/Pet. : Mr. Anda Ram Choudhary PP

For accused/resp. : None present.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

11/05/2022

1. The present criminal revision petition under Section 397 read

with Section 401 Cr.P.C. and the instant criminal appeal, have

been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

Revision Petition No. 419/2001:

"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this revision petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 3.5.2011, passed by learned ACJM, Nagaur in Criminal Case No. 298/97 (68/2000), State versus Jeetu Ram and others, so far as it relates to giving benefit of probation to all the convicted accuseds respondents, acquitting the accused

(2 of 7) [CRLR-419/2001]

persons of the offences 326, 447 and also under Sections 147, 148, 447, 323, 325 or 323, 325 read with 149 IPC may kindly be quashed and set aside and the case be remanded back to the learned trial Court for a fresh decision on above points, for convicting all the accuseds persons for all the offences charged and awarding appropriate sentences to the accuseds and also for summoning the Mukesh son of Radha Kishan of village Kathoti, Tehsil Jayal District Nagur for the trial on the above charges as per law. Alternatively all the convicted accused persons may kindly be awarded maximum awardable punishment. Any other appropriate relief which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioner, may kindly be granted to the petitioners."

Criminal Appeal No. 850/2001:

"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that leave to appeal may kindly be accepted and appeal may kindly be allowed. The impugned judgment dated 03.05.2001 passed by the learned trial court may kindly be quashed and set aside and accused-respondents Ganpat Ram Ganesh Ram, Ram Niwas, Karan Singh, Sukharam @ Sukhdev s/o Ganpat Ram, Sukha Ram @ Sukhdev s/o Karan Singh may kindly be punished/convicted and sentenced for the offence u/s 147, 148, 447, 341, 323, 325 & Sec.323, 325 read with Sec. 149 & Sec.326 IPC and accused-respondents Jeetu Ram, Hanuman Ram, Heriram, Bhanwar Lal and Rajendra for the offence under Section 447 & 326 IPC."

Thus, the present revision petition and the criminal appeal both assail the same impugned judgment.

2. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court are that on

the basis of a written report lodged by complainant/petitioner-

Devaram on 20.09.1994, at 08:15 p.m., before the Aarkshi

Kendra, Jayal, an F.I.R. bearing No.77/1994 was registered at

Police Station Jayal, against the accused-respondents and one

Mukesh, S/o Radha Kishan of village Kalhoti, Tehsil Jayal, District

(3 of 7) [CRLR-419/2001]

Nagaur, for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 307,

323 and 379 I.P.C. stating therein that on the same day, at about

5/6 p.m., the above-named persons had beaten up the

complainant's brother Mohan Ram with farcies, bhals and lathis,

who sustained injuries on his person as a result of such assault.

And that, while leaving from the scene, they took with them a

brass bhanda and three kassies. And that, once the investigation

was complete, the police authorities filed a charge sheet against

the above named respondents, except for Mukesh, for the

offences under Sections 147,148, 149, 447, 341, 323, 325, 307

and 326 I.P.C.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner and the

State/appellant submit that the accused-respondents were

discharged for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C., at the stage of

framing of charges, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Nagaur vide order dated 18.09.1997. And that the case was

committed to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur for

trial; whereafter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate framed the

charges against the accused-respondents for the offences under

Sections 147, 148, 447, 341, 323 & 325 or Section 323, 325 read

with Section 149 and Section 326 IPC; upon such charges being

denied by the accused-respondents, they were made to stand the

trial.

3.1 Learned counsel further submit that After some point of

time, upon the due procedure being followed, the matter was sent

to the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur ('trial

court') for the necessary trial and adjudication.

3.2 Learned counsel also submit that the learned trial court

thereafter, vide the impugned judgment dated, 03.05.2001, while

(4 of 7) [CRLR-419/2001]

acquitting respondents-Jeetu Ram, Hari Ram, Hanumanram,

Bhanwarlal and Rajendra for the offences under Sections 326 and

447 I.P.C; though they were convicted for the offences under

Sections 148, 341, 323 and 325 I.P.C., but were granted the

benefit of Probation Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act,

1958, while the learned trial court acquitted the respondents

Ganpat Ram, Ganesharam, Ramniwas, Karan Singh, Sukharam @

Sukhdev and Muknaram from all the charges levelled against

them.

3.3 Learned counsel further submit that the learned trial court

has erred in granting the benefit of probation to accused-

respondent-Jeetu Ram and Hari Ram, as both of them had criminal

antecedents and were not convicted for the first time, and had

been granted the benefit of probation under the Act of 1958,

already once before, vide order dated 15.01.1999 in Criminal Case

No. 600/1996 (417/1994), and that the same was placed on

record before the learned trial court.

3.4 Learned counsel also submits that the learned trial court has

erred in passing the impugned judgment, since the injured witness

P.W.-5 Mohan Ram deposed in clear terms that accused

respondent-Mukna Ram, gave him a farsi blow on his left leg

which was also corroborated by other eye - witnesses viz. P.W. 1

Chukli, P.W. 2 Parmuri, P.W. 10 Prahlad Ram, as well as by P.W. 14

Dr. Tulcha Ram who examined the injured witness. And that, Dr.

Tulcha had stated that injury no. 3 in the injury report at Exhibit

P-17, of the record before the learned Court below, was a grievous

injury caused by the sharp - edged weapon.

3.5 Learned counsel further submits that the charge for the

offence under Section 447 is clearly made out against the

accused, as the incident in question occurred in the field of one

Satya Narayan, where injured Mohan Ram reached while he was

(5 of 7) [CRLR-419/2001]

running to escape, but it is clearly stated by him and the other

witnesses that the accused persons entered the field of Mohan

Ram when he was working on the land, and ran when he caught

sight of the accused, to the field of Satya Narayan.

3.6 Learned counsel also submits that whether the weapon, the

farci was in the right hand or the left hand of Mukna Ram is a

minor inconsistency, and cannot be taken to the standard of a

gross inconsistency or contradiction, amongst the testimonies of

the witnesses in the case.

3.7 Learned counsel further submits that the incident in question

occurred in the evening after the closing of schools, from where

the respondents no. 7 and 11 (in revision petition) could very well

reach the place where the incident in question occurred, after

completing their duty in their concerned schools during the day.

3.8 Learned counsel also submits that the learned trial court

failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under Section 319

Cr.P.C. in not summoning accused-Mukesh, whose name was there

in the F.I.R. and against whom despite ample evidence being

placed on record, and him being an active participant in the

assault on Mohan Ram, was not subjected to trial before the

learned trial court.

4. Heard learned counsel for both parties, and perused the

record of the case.

5. This Court observes that the learned trial court in passing

the impugned judgment, has recorded observations to the effect

that the injury no. 3, as mentioned in the injury report generated

by P.W. 14 Dr. Tulcha Ram, states that the injury so caused to the

injured party, may have been caused by a sharp edged weapon,

but also states that the injury could also have been caused by a

stone or even by falling down.

(6 of 7) [CRLR-419/2001]

6. This Court further observes that the learned trial court also

recorded the finding that Deva Ram, the complainant/petitioner,

and brother of Mohan Ram, the victim, was narrated the incident

in question by Basti Ram, Prahlad Ram, Maga Ram and Sunda

Ram and that he himself was not an eye witness to the incident in

question, and that the report was lodged by him thereafter.

Furthermore, P.W. 9 Sunda Ram turned hostile, and that there are

inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses' with regard to

respondent-Mukna Ram being armed with a fire arm and a farsa,

while P.W. 10 Prahlad Ram stated that the respondent-Mukna Ram

was carrying only a farsa. Thus, the inconsistency is not only

limited to which weapon was in which hand, as is contended on

behalf of the revisonist-petitioner, but also creates doubt as to

whether a pistol was used by the said accused during the incident

in question. Moreover, there is no recovery of any kind of firearm

from the said accused. And that, taking into consideration the

weight of both weapons, it was highly unlikely that the

respondent-Mukna Ram would be able to simultaneously use both

to inflict injury on the person of the injured party, Mohan Ram.

7. This Court also observes that the learned trial court also

found that, basis the above discussion, the story that the

respondent-Mukna Ram was carrying a pistol / firearm, is thus a

fabricated story, and one without any evidentiary basis. And that,

it is admitted by the injured, Mohan Ram, himself that the

respondent-Mukna Ram only inflicted one injury on his person with

the farsi. Moreover, given the number of persons who were

arrayed as accused in the case, it was not ascertainable whether

respondent-Mukna Ram was even present at the scene of the

incident in question.

8. This Court further observes that the learned trial court has

also relied upon the medical evidence in passing the impugned

(7 of 7) [CRLR-419/2001]

judgment, which reveals that the injuries so sustained by the

injured party do not fall within the purview of Section 326 I.P.C.

9. The learned trial court has also recorded that the accused

persons therein, the present respondents no. 2 to 11 (in the

revision petition), are all first time offenders, and therefore, while

convicting the respondents no. 2, 3, 5, 8 & 13 (in the revision

petition), for the offences under Sections 148, 341, 323 and 325

I.P.C., granted them the benefit of probation under Section 4 of

the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

10. This Court therefore observes that the learned trial court has

delved deep into the evidences placed on record before it, and

only after a thorough perusal of the record and looking into the

overall facts and circumstances of the case, passed the impugned

judgment. The Court has dealt with each of the allegations made

against the accused persons therein, and none of the averments

made against them were sustainable in the eye of law.

11. This Court, in light of the above made observations, finds

that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal

infirmity so as to warrant any interference..

12. Resultantly, both the present revision petition as well as the

criminal appeal are dismissed. All pending applications stand

disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back

forthwith.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

50-51-Skant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)