Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vimla Devi vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:42228) on 5 December, 2023
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2023:RJ-JD:42228]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 856/2022
Vimla Devi W/o Omprakash, Aged About 59 Years, R/o
Mirjewala, Tehsil And District Sriganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Jisukh S/o Shri Rampratap, R/o Mirjewala, Tehsil And
District Sriganganagar.
3. Sanjay S/o Prithviraj, R/o Mirjewala, Tehsil And District
Sriganganagar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Kinjal Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP with
Mr. CP Marwan
Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
05/12/2023
Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-
complainant against the order dated 19.04.2022, passed by
learned Upper Session Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar in Cr. Appeal
No.33/2018 (CIS No.78/2018) whereby the learned appellate
court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment dated
20.02.2018, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
No.1, Sri Ganganagar in Cr. Case No.370/2017 whereby the
learned trial court convicted the respondents No.2 & 3 for offences
under Sections 452, 323, 324, 34 IPC but gave benefit of
probation under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. The
respondents No.2 & 3 were directed to be released on probation
[2023:RJ-JD:42228] (2 of 5) [CRLR-856/2022]
provided each of them furnishes personal bond and a surety bond
in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each to keep peace and maintain good
behaviour. They were further directed not to repeat the offence
and to appear and receive sentence when ever called upon to do
so during the period of one year. The trial court also imposed
Rs.2,000/- (Rs.1,000/- each) as litigation cost upon the
respondents No.2 & 3. By this revision petition, the petitioner-
complainant has made challenge only to the extent of benefit of
probation given to the respondents No.2 & 3 by the courts below.
Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up is that on
10.01.2001, complainant Vidhya Devi submitted a Parcha Bayan
to the effect that when she was alone at her home and was
brooming in the porch of the house, the accused persons
threatened to kill her while they were standing on the terrace. The
house of the accused persons is adjacent to the house of the
complainant. The accused persons jumped into the porch armed
with Kassi and Balli and caused injuries to the complainant. On
shouting, complainant's family members came to rescue her, upon
which the accused persons ran away. On this Parcha Bayan, a case
for offences under sections 307, 452, 323, 324, 34 IPC was
registered by the Police against the accused-persons and
commenced investigation.
On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed only
against the accused Prithvi Raj and Jisukh. During the trial,
accused Prithvi Raj expired and the trial court abated the
proceedings against accused Prithvi. Thereafter, on an application
under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the trial court took cognizance against
accused Sanjay. Thereafter, charges of the case were framed
[2023:RJ-JD:42228] (3 of 5) [CRLR-856/2022]
against the accused-respondents No.2 & 3 for offences under
Sections 452, 323, 324, 34 IPC, which they denied and claimed
trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as nine witnesses and got exhibited various documents.
Thereafter, statements of the accused respondents No.2 & 3 were
recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, no witness was
examined.
After considering the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses and the material available on record, the trial court vide
judgment dated 20.02.2018 convicted the respondents No.2 & 3
for offences under Sections 452, 323, 324, 34 IPC, but extended
the benefit under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act to them
and imposed Rs.2,000/- (Rs.1,000/- each) as litigation cost upon
the respondents No.2 & 3.
Being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, both the
petitioner-complainant and accused-respondents No.2 & 3
preferred two separate appeals before the learned appellate court,
which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 19.04.2022.
Hence, this revision petition only on behalf of the petitioner-
complainant.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant argued that
accused gave Kassi blow to the petitioner-complainant and this
fact has been corroborated by the medical evidence. Yet, the trial
court as well as the appellate court did not consider these aspect
of the matter and despite conviction for aforesaid offences, they
have not awarded any sentence to the accused-respondents No.2
& 3 and instead given benefit of probation under Section 4 of
[2023:RJ-JD:42228] (4 of 5) [CRLR-856/2022]
Probation of Offenders Act, which is perverse and illegal. Thus, it
is prayed that the impugned judgments may be quashed and set
aside to the extent of giving benefit of probation to the accused-
respondent No.2 & 3 and they may be awarded sentence for the
offences committed.
Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for
respondents No.2 & 3 vehemently opposed the prayer made by
learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant and submitted that
learned courts below have rightly given the benefit of probation to
the respondents No.2 & 3. The impugned judgments are perfectly
justified and require no interference.
I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for
the parties and perused the impugned judgments and also gone
through the entire record.
The learned trial court has passed a well reasoned and
detailed judgment while considering each and every aspect of the
matter as well as evidence produced before it, which has been
upheld by the appellate court. Initially, the Police exonerated the
accused respondent No.3 Sanjay but later on, the trial court took
cognizance against him under Section 319 Cr.P.C. After meticulous
appreciation of the evidence, the learned trial court has convicted
the accused-respondents No.2 & 3 for offence under Sections 452,
323, 324, 34 IPC and gave benefit of probation. The findings of
the trial court has been upheld by the appellate court. Thus, this
Court does not find any illegality and perversity in the impugned
judgments and the same do not require any interference from this
Court. Further, considering the nature of injuries and the fact that
there is no other criminal antecedents against the accused-
[2023:RJ-JD:42228] (5 of 5) [CRLR-856/2022]
respondents No.2 & 3, the trial court has rightly given the benefit
of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act to the accused-
respondents No.2 & 3. The accused-respondents No.2 & 3 have
satisfactorily passed the period of probation of one year now.
There is no infirmity and illegality in the impugned
judgments passed by the courts below and thus, the same do not
warrant any interference.
Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.
The record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
195-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
