Chamanlal Chanderia vs State (2023/Rjjd/007697)
2023 Latest Caselaw 2519 Raj

[2023/RJJD/007697]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 390/2020

Chamanlal Chanderia S/o Shri Ratanlal, Aged About 67 Years, By Caste Khatik, Resident Of House No. 192, Ambamata Scheme, Oad Basti, Khatikwada, Udaipur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State, Through Pp

2. Smt. Kesar Bai W/o Shri Tolaram Khatik, R/o 175, Oad Basti, P.s. Ambamata, Dist. Udaipur. (Raj.).

3. Kuldeep @ Bunty S/o Sh. Tolaram Khatik, R/o 175, Oad Basti, P.s. Ambamata, Dist. Udaipur. (Raj.).

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     None present
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. A.R. Choudhary, P.P.



               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                      Order

28/03/2023

By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a

challenge has been made to the judgment dated 01.02.2016

passed by ACJM No.2, Udaipur in Criminal Regular Case

No.426/2005 whereby the accused respondents were convicted for

the offences under Sections 323, 325 and 504 of IPC. While taking

a lenient view instead of sending them to jail, the benefit of

probation was extended in their favour. They were also directed to

pay a total of Rs.600/- as a cost of proceeding.

Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner, who happens

to be complainant of the case, preferred an appeal before the

learned Sessions Judge, which has been decided vide judgment

dated 13.01.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.5,

[2023/RJJD/007697] (2 of 3) [CRLR-390/2020]

Udaipur. The learned appellate Court though maintained the

finding of conviction and order of granting probation but directed

to pay Rs.10,000/- as a compensation to be given to the victim

Chamanlal who is the petitioner in this case.

Both the judgments are under assail by this Court.

The mater came up for consideration before the co-ordinate

Bench of this Court on 03.12.2021 but on that day, the petitioner

was not present and therefore it was observed that if the

petitioner would not appear to argue the matter, the revision

petition shall be dismissed. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned

for one and the other reasons but nobody appeared to represent

the petitioner. The matter was listed before this Court last on

15.12.2022 but on that too no one was present to represent the

petitioner. Thereafter again on 03.01.2023 none was present even

in the second round to pursue the cause of the petitioner.

I have gone through the judgment passed by learned trial

Judge and thereafter by the learned appellate Court, it appears

that the learned trial Judge has meticulously examined the

evidence brought on record and after hearing the parties on the

point of sentence and considering the overall facts and

circumstances of the case as well as ambit and scope and the

object of probation of Offenders Act, deemed it appropriate to

extend the benefit of probation to the accused respondents.

The appellate Court took a further lenient view in favour of

the petitioner and in addition to what has been passed by the

learned trial Court, the learned appellate Court deemed it

appropriate to direct the accused respondents to deposit a sum of

Rs. 10,000/- as an amount of compensation. The judgment

[2023/RJJD/007697] (3 of 3) [CRLR-390/2020]

passed by the Court below are well reasoned and speaking

judgment, leaving no room for interference. Otherwise also, there

is no right available to the complainant to make a plea for

enhancement of sentence. The finding of guilt and order of

sentence passed by the learned trial Court has been meticulously

examined by the learned appellate Court and thus, no further

grounds are present to seek interference of this Court in revisional

jurisidiction while examining the legality, correctness and propriety

of judgment of conviction and order of sentence. This Court is

satisfied that no illegality or impropriety has been committed by

the Court below and therefore, the judgment passed by the Court

below deserve to be maintained.

Accordingly, the instant revision petition is dissmissed as

being devoid of any force.

(FARJAND ALI),J 31-divya/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)