Gordhan Singh And Anr vs Ladu Lal And Ors ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6227 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:28779]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1148/2003

1. Gordhan Singh S/o Shri Sodhan Singh Rao, aged 60 years

2. Bheru Singh S/o Shri Sodhan Singh Rao, aged 65 years

Both R/o Village Ravo Ka Khera, Post Dhulawa, Police Station

Mandal, District Bhilwara

----Petitioner Versus

1. Ladu Lal S/o Shri Nand Lal Rao

2. Narayan Singh s/o Shri Amar Singh

3. Ghanshyam Lal S/o Shri Nand Lal Rao

4. Papu Singh S/o Shri Nand Lal Rao

5. Panna Lal S/o Shri Mehtaab Singh Rao

6. Chain Singh S/o Shri Nirbhay Singh

7. Mahipal Singh S/o Shri Panna Lal

8. Dalpat Singh s/o Shri Chain Singh Rao

9. Suraj Mal s/o Shri Madan Lal Rao All R/o Village Ravo Ka Khera, Post Dhulawa, Police Station Mandal, District Bhilwara

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.S. Chundawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, P.P.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

23/08/2023

1. The instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401

of the CrPC has been preferred by the complainant-petitioners

being aggrieved of the judgment dated 08.09.2003 passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast TracK), Bhilwara in

Sessions Case No.34/2003, whereby the learned trial court while

acquitting the accused-respondents from the charge under Section

[2023:RJ-JD:28779] (2 of 5) [CRLR-1148/2003]

307 of the IPC, convicted them for the offences under Sections

147, 325/149, 323/149 and 452 of the IPC, but instead of

sentencing them to imprisonment at once, released them on

probation for a period of two years while imposing penalty of

Rs.500/- on each accused.

2. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant

revision petition are that on 15.10.2002, Mrs. Kailash Kanwar W/o

Chain Singh submitted a report at the Police Station Mandal to the

effect that at 06.00 p.m. on that day, Pappu Singh, Ghanshyam

Singh, Ladu Singh, Narayan Singh, Surajmal, Dalpat Singh, Chain

Singh, Panna Lal, Mahipal Singh, residents of Ravo Ka Kheda, due

to previous enmity, came armed with lathis hurling abuses and

entered in the house of Babu Singh and started assaulting Babu

Singh and Gordhan Singh. Chain Singh and Natwar Singh saved

him and brought him outside the house. At that time, her

grandfather Bheru Singh came and tried to avert the fight, upon

which the accused started assaulting Bheru Singh. Dalpat Singh

gave a lathi blow on his head and Pappu gave him lathi blow on

his back. Bheru Singh became unconscious and fell on the

ground. The accused assaulted other persons too who tried to

intervene.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, FIR No.218/2002 was

registered for the offences under Section 143, 452, 307 and 323

of the IPC and investigation was commenced. During

investigation spot documents were prepared, medical reports of

the injured were procured, accused were arrested, recoveries

[2023:RJ-JD:28779] (3 of 5) [CRLR-1148/2003]

were made and statements were recorded. After completion of

investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the respondents in

the competent court.

4. The learned trial court framed charges against the

respondents for the offences under Sections 147, 307/149,

325/149, 323/149 and 452 of the IPC and upon denial of guilt of

the accused, trial was commenced. During the course of the trial,

the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and exhibited 28

documents. Upon being confronted with the prosecution

allegations, in their statements under Section 313 CrPC, the

accused denied the same and claimed to be innocent. No

evidence was produced in defence.

5. After through appreciation of the evidence placed on record,

testimonies of the witnesses and after hearing the learned Public

Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel, the learned trial court

vide the impugned judgment dated 08.09.2003 convicted the

respondents for the offences under Sections 147, 325/149,

323/149 and 452 of the IPC while acquitting them from the charge

under Section 307 of the IPC, but instead of awarding jail

sentence at once, granted them the benefit of probation. Hence,

this revision petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned

trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence available on

record and has committed a grave error by acquitting the

respondents from the charge under Section 307 of the IPC. It is

[2023:RJ-JD:28779] (4 of 5) [CRLR-1148/2003]

submitted that the respondents gave lathi blows on the head of an

old aged person Bheru Lal, thus, there is no doubt about the

intent and knowledge of the accused regarding the fact that such

an act could result in death of the victim. The further contention

of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that looking to the

nature and gravity of the offence committed by the accused, the

learned trial court was not justified in extending the benefit of

probation to them and they deserve harsh punishment for their

act.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the

learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on

record.

8. So far as the acquittal of the respondents from the charge

under Section 307 of the IPC is concerned, the learned trial court

has given a finding that from the testimony of Dr. Awadhesh

Mathur (P.W.12) and the injury report of Bheru Singh (Ex.P/6), it

is clear that the injury suffered by Bheru Singh on head is not

sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Further

looking to the fact that number of accused, armed with lathis,

were involved in the assault, but only one injury was suffered by

the injured Bheru Singh on head, thus, it is crystal clear that they

had no intention to commit death of the injured. Upon a critical

examination of the evidence, particularly, the injury report and the

opinion of the doctor, this court is of the opinion that the learned

trial court was perfectly justified in acquitting the respondents

from the charge under Section 307 of the IPC.

[2023:RJ-JD:28779] (5 of 5) [CRLR-1148/2003]

9. So far as granting the benefit of probation is concerned, after

hearing the parties on the point of sentence, the learned trial

court observed that the petitioners and the respondents are

residents of the same village and are neighbours. They had a

dispute regarding lane between the houses which was the reason

for the incident. However, at the time of passing of the judgment,

both the parties were living peacefully for around a year in the

same neighbourhood. In this background and considering the

ambit and scope and the object of probation of Offenders Act, the

learned trial court deemed it appropriate to extend the benefit of

probation to the accused respondents. This court does not find

any error, illegality or irregularity in the said order warranting

interference.

10. As an upshot of the above discussion, the instant revision

petition is dismissed as being bereft of any merit.

(FARJAND ALI),J 18-Pramod/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)