Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pratap Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:40136) on 21 November, 2023
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2023:RJ-JD:40136]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1182/2023
1. Pratap Singh S/o Shri Amar Singh, Aged About 36 Years,
R/o Village Kaamaliya, P.s. Dhamotar, Pratapgarh,
District Pratapgarh.
2. Manohar Singh S/o Shri Amar Singh, Aged About 40
Years, R/o Village Kaamaliya, P.s. Dhamotar, Pratapgarh,
District Pratapgarh.
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Arora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
21/11/2023
The petitioners have filed the present criminal revision
petition being aggrieved by the judgment dt. 14.06.2023 passed
by the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh in Apeal No. 66/2020
whereby, the appellate court rejected the appeal and upheld the
judgment dated 18.08.2020 passed by Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Pratapgarh, whereby, the learned Judge convicted the
petitioners for offence under Section 447 & 323/34 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 he is having ownership of an
agricultural land at village Kamaliya where he is cultivating the
[2023:RJ-JD:40136] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1182/2023]
crop of gram. It was alleged that his neighbour Pratap Singh
alongwith other persons entered into his field and started beating
the complainant, his son Kanhaiya lal and Nilesh.
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 447, 323 in the alternate
Section 323/34, 324 IPC.
The prosecution in support of its case examiend ten
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 Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate convicted the petitioner from offence under Section
447 & 323/34 IPC vide judgment dated 18.08.2020 but granted
the benefit of probation under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders
Act. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an appeal before
the learned Sessions Judge, however, the same came to be
dismissed by the appellate Court vide judgment dated
14.06.2023.
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 447, 323/34
IPC. It is submitted that there were cross cases between the
parties and in cross case, the complainant party were acquitted by
[2023:RJ-JD:40136] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1182/2023]
the court below but convicted the petitioners for offence under
Section 447, 323/34 IPC. It is submitted that the complainant
party caused injuries to the petitioners and the petitioner no.1
had received grievous injury on his hand. It is further argued that
the injuries caused to the complainant are simple in nature and
not sustained by any weapon. 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.
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 failed to prove 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.
[2023:RJ-JD:40136] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1182/2023]
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present
criminal revision petition has no substance and the same is hereby
dismissed.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
20-BJSH/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
