Brij Lal And Ors vs State
2023 Latest Caselaw 1091 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 189/2008

1. Brij Lal son of Bhura Ram

2. Chanan Ram son of Birj Lal

3. Lunna Ram S/o Brij Lal

4. Om Prakash son of Brij Lal

5. Raja Ram son of Brij Lal all resident of Neyolakhi, Tehsil Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh

----Appellant Versus State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. NL Joshi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Javed Gauri, Dy GA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

Judgment

DATE OF JUDGMENT 27/01/2023

The appellants have preferred the present cr. appeal under

Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated

30.1.2008 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast

Track) No.2, Hanumangarh, Headquarter Nohar in Sessions Case

No.14/2007 (28/2003) whereby the learned trial court held the

appellants guilty under Sections 147, 323 and 186 of the IPC, but

instead of directing them to serve sentence, granted the benefit of

(2 of 3) [CRLA-189/2008]

probation and also directed them to pay a sum of Rs.200/- each to

the injured.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that

the FIR lodged against the appellants is the counter blast to the

earlier FIR lodged by the appellants and no such occurrence had

taken place. It is submitted that in fact, the complainant party

was the aggressor, who made an attempt to dispossess the

appellants from their lawful possession. Thus, there was no

evidence of constituting unlawful assembly. Learned counsel

further submits that learned trial court committed manifest

illegality while holding the appellants guilty under Section 186 of

the IPC whereas there is no iota of evidence or any document on

record regarding causing obstacle in discharging the official duty

or official work by a public servant. Hence, it is submitted that

the appeal may be allowed and the impugned order may be

quashed and set aside.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer

made by learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that the

impugned order passed by the learned trial court is just and

proper and hence, there is no need to interfere with the impugned

order.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully

perused the relevant material on record.

Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and

keeping in mind the arguments of learned counsel for the parties,

I am of the considered opinion that the learned trial court has

rightly held the appellants guilty for the offences under Sections

147, 323 and 186 of the IPC and the impugned order granting

(3 of 3) [CRLA-189/2008]

benefit of probation and directing the appellants to pay a sum of

Rs.200/- each to the injured, is justified.

The order impugned is well reasoned and based on evidence

available on record. Therefore, no interference is called for.

Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is hereby dismissed.

The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J 146-CPGoyal/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)