Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vikram Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:43781) on 14 December, 2023
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2023:RJ-JD:43781]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1290/2019
1. Vikram Singh S/o Sh. Sukha Ram, Aged About 42 Years,
B/c Jat, R/o Merta Road, Tehsil Merta, Dist. Nagaur.
2. Rajendra Singh S/o Sh. Sukha Ram, Aged About 44
Years, B/c Jat, R/o Merta Road, Tehsil Merta, Dist.
Nagaur.
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishal Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
14/12/2023
The petitioners have filed the present criminal revision
petition being aggrieved by the judgment dt. 03.08.2019 passed
by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
Cases, Merta in Appeal No. 36/2018 whereby, the appellate court
rejected the appeal and upheld the judgment dated 15.06.2017
passed by Additional Judicial Magistrate, Merta, whereby, the
learned Judge convicted the petitioners for offence under Section
451, 323 and 325/34 IPC but granted the benefit of probation
under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant lodged
a written report to the effect that on 26.12.2010 in the morning,
the accused persons forcibly entered into his house and
[2023:RJ-JD:43781] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1290/2019]
pressurized him to withdraw the civil cases and while threatening
the accused persons abused and gave beating to him and his
family members.
On this report, the FIR was registered and the police started
investigation. After investigation, the police filed challan against
the petitioners. Thereafter, charges were framed against the
petitioners for offence under Section 451, 323, 325/34 IPC.
The prosecution in support of its case examined twelve
witnesses and various documents were exhibited. The statement
of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded and one
witness was examined in defence.
After conclusion of trial, the court of Judicial Magistrate
convicted the petitioners from offence under Section 451, 323 &
325/34 IPC vide judgment dated 15.06.2017 but granted the
benefit of probation under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the
learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cases,
Merta, however, the same came to be dismissed by the appellate
Court vide judgment dated 03.08.2019.
Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the Courts
below without going through the entire record and evidence
convicted the petitioners for offence under Section 451, 323,
325/34 IPC. It is submitted that on the same set of evidence,
three persons named in FIR were exonerated by the IO but the
petitioners have been falsely implicated and convicted. It is
[2023:RJ-JD:43781] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1290/2019]
submitted that there are major contradictions in the statement of
the witnesses. There was dispute going on between the parties
and therefore, their false implication cannot be ruled out. Thus the
judgment of the Courts below are liable to be set aside and the
matter may be remanded back to the trial court for passing fresh
order. In the alternative, it is prayed that the conviction under
the above offence will operate as a bad name and disqualification
for the competitive examinations and hence benefit of section 12
of the Probation Of Offenders Act should be extended to him.
I have heard the counsels for the parties and gone through
the material on record.
From the evidence on record so also finding arrived by the
learned trial court, it appears that the learned trial court has
convicted the accused petitioners on the basis of statement of the
witnesses so also the injury report of injured. The courts below
came to the conclusion by way of detailed and speaking order that
the prosecution has proved the charges against the accused
petitioners. However, looking to the fact that there are no criminal
antecedents against the petitioners, the court has granted the
benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders
Act.
In the light of aforesaid discussion, the petitioners have
failed to show any error of law or on facts on the basis of which
interference can be made by this Court in the judgment under
challenge. However, considering the prayer of the petitioners for
grant of benefit under Section 12 of the Act of 1958, it is ordered
[2023:RJ-JD:43781] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1290/2019]
that no disqualification will be suffered by them on the ground of
their conviction by way of impugned judgment.
With the aforesaid directions, this revision petition stands
disposed of. Stay petition also stands disposed of.
Record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
136-BJSH/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
