Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Santro vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:43748) on 14 December, 2023
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2023:RJ-JD:43748]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 994/2023
Santro W/o Sh. Kesra Ram, Aged About 31 Years, Kikrali, Teh.
Nohar, Dist. Hanumangarh, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Nathuram S/o Sh. Mamchand, Kikarwali, Teh. Nohar,
Dist. Hanumangarh, Raj.
3. Rajpal S/o Sh. Mamchand, Kikarwali, Teh. Nohar, Dist.
Hanumangarh, Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sihag
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
Mr. Vikas Bijarnia
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
14/12/2023
The petitioner has filed the present criminal revision petition
being aggrieved by the judgment dt. 31.05.2023 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge No.1, Nohar, Hanumangarh in Appeal No.
102/2019 whereby, the appellate court partly allowed the appeal
and while upholding the conviction against the respondents for
offence under Section 448, 323/34 and 324/34 IPC passed by
Judicial Magistrate, Nohar in Criminal Case No. 49/2013, 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 21.01.2013, when her
husband was sitting with his relatives who had come to visit and
[2023:RJ-JD:43748] (2 of 4) [CRLR-994/2023]
she was cutting wooden sticks, at that time the accused persons
came in a drunken state and started teasing her and thereafter,
assaulted her with 'Barchi'.
On this report, the FIR No. 44/2013 was registered and the
police started investigation. After investigation, the police filed
challan against the accused. Thereafter, charges were framed
against the accused for offence under Section 448, 354, 323,
324/34 IPC.
The prosecution in support of its case examined six
witnesses and various documents were exhibited. The statement
of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, however, no
documents were produced in defence.
After conclusion of trial, the court of Judicial Magistrate,
Nohar, District Hanumangarh acquitted the accused from offence
under Section 354 IPC but convicted the accused respondents for
offence under Section 448, 323/34 and 324/34 IPC vide judgment
dated 16.09.2019. Feeling aggrieved, the accused preferred an
appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Nohar.
The appellate court while partly allowing the appeal, upheld the
conviction of accused under Section 448, 323/34 and 324/34 IPC
vide judgment dated 31.05.2023 but granted them benefit of
probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
Counsel for the petitioner complainant petitioner submits
that although the appellate court upheld the conviction of accused
respondents for offence under Sections 448, 323/34 and 324/34
IPC but committed an error in granting benefit of probation under
[2023:RJ-JD:43748] (3 of 4) [CRLR-994/2023]
Section 4 of Probation Act and adequate punishment should have
been imposed upon the respondents but the appellate court has
adopted a lenient view without any valid reason. Therefore, the
impugned order may be set aside and the accused may be
adequately punished for the alleged offences.
Counsel for the respondent no.2 & 3 vehemently opposed
the prayer made by the petitioner and argued that the trial court
after taking into consideration the nature of offence, duration of
protracted trial, mental and physical agony, has granted the
benefit of probation to the accused which does not call for any
interference. Moreover, the petitioner has been awarded
compensation in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-. Therefore, it cannot be
said that the impugned judgment is illegal or perverse.
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 respondents 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 beyond reasonable doubt. However, looking to the fact
that there are no criminal antecedents against the respondents,
the appellate court has granted the benefit of probation under
Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
[2023:RJ-JD:43748] (4 of 4) [CRLR-994/2023]
After considering the evidence available on record, this Court
is of the opinion that the appellate court has not committed any
error in convicting the accused respondents and granting benefit
of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present
criminal revision petition has no substance and the same is hereby
dismissed.
Record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
137-BJSH/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
