Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vaja Ram And Ors vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:42494) on 6 December, 2023
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2023:RJ-JD:42494]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 261/2012
1. Vaja Ram S/o Shri Deeparam, Age 26 years,
2. Pakaram @ Pukhraj S/o Shri Dayaram, Age 24 years,
3. Hathiram S/o Shri Lalaram, Age 29 years,
4. Bhairaram S/o Shri Lalaram, Age 25 years,
B/c Rajpurohit, R/o Gudanal, Tehsil Sivana, District Barmer.
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rameshwar Dave
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
06/12/2023
Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants
against the order dated 20.12.2011, passed by learned Session
Judge Balotra, in Sessions Case No.04/2011 whereby the learned
trial court has acquitted the accused appellants for offence under
Section 307/34 of IPC but convicted them for offences under
Sections 341, 323/34 and 325/34 of IPC and also gave benefit of
probation under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act to
maintain peace and good behaviour for a period of three years
and also imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.2,500/-each) of the
appellants.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the order of
the learned trial Court is illegal since the trial Court acquitted the
appellants under Section 307/34 of IPC, therefore, the accused
[2023:RJ-JD:42494] (2 of 3) [CRLA-261/2012]
appellants should also have been acquitted for offence under
Sections 341, 323/34 and 325/34 of IPC. Counsel further submits
that according to the statement of prosecution witnesses, there
are material contradictions, improvements and omission and these
appellants should have been acquitted from the charges levelled
against them. In these circumstances, the order impugned may be
set aside.
Per contra learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the
prayer made by the counsel for the appellants.
I have considered the arguments advanced before and
carefully gone through the material available on record.
According to the statement of complainant as well as injured
PW/1-Nagaram, he clearly mentioned that all the accused came in
a Jeep and Pakkaram inflicted head injury by iron rod, Vajaram
inflicted injury by Lathi on his hand and leg and other accused
gave fist blows. Thereafter the injured was taken to the hospital,
where the Doctor admitted the injured and according to the
statement of Dr. Guman Singh (PW-6), he clearly stated that
Nagaram received total six injuries on his body and out of that
injuries No.1 & 5 both are found to be grievous in nature but both
the injuries are on his non-vital part of the body. So the learned
trial court had rightly acquitted the accused appellants for offence
under Section 307/34 of IPC and rightly convicted the appellants
for offence under Sections 341, 323/34 and 325/34 of IPC and the
trial Court gave benefit of probation under Section 4 of Probation
of Offenders Act. This judgment was passed on 20.12.2011 and
three years had already been expired and at the time of passing
the judgment, all the accused appellants have already deposited
[2023:RJ-JD:42494] (3 of 3) [CRLA-261/2012]
the fine amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.2,500/- each) as imposed by
the learned trial Court. Therefore, there is no infirmity and
illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court and
thus, the same do not warrant any interference.
Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed.
The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
313-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
