Utsav Lal And Ors vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:34574)
2023 Latest Caselaw 7850 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:34574]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 650/2003

1.     Utsav Lal s/o Lalu Ram Brahmin r/o Siyana, PS Rashmi,
       District Chittorgarh.
2.     Mangi Lal s/o Lalu Ram Brahmin r/o Siyana, PS Rashmi,
       District Chittorgarh.
3.     Madho Lal s/o Lalu Ram Brahmin r/o Siyana, PS Rashmi,
       District Chittorgarh.
4.     Mithu Lal s/o Madho r/o Siyana, PS Rashmi, District
       Chittorgarh.
5.     Nand Lal s/o Mangi Lal r/o Siyana, PS Rashmi, District
       Chittorgarh.
6.     Suresh s/o Utsav Lal r/o Siyana, PS Rashmi, District
       Chittorgarh.
7.     Mst.Bhagwati w/o Madho Lal r/o Siyana, PS Rashmi,
       District Chittorgarh.
8.     Narayan s/o Chhoga Keer r/o Siyana, PS Rashmi, District
       Chittorgarh.
9.     Bheru Lal s/o Shanker Lal Brahmin r/o Bardod, PS
       Hamirgarh, District Bhilwara.
                                                                  ----petitionerss
                                     Versus
State of Rajasthan.
                                                                  ----Respondent


For petitioners(s)          :    Mr.Pravin Vyas.
For Respondent(s)           :    Mohd.Javed Gauri, P.P.



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                                     ORDER

04/10/2023

This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with

401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated

24.7.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2,

Chittorgarh in Cr.Appeal No.65/2001 whereby the judgment dated

14.9.2001 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

[2023:RJ-JD:34574] (2 of 5) [CRLR-650/2003]

Kapasan, District Chittorgarh in Cr.Original Case No.23/1995 was

upheld and the petitioners were convicted and sentenced as

below:

Conviction for offences                               Sentences
under Sections:
147 IPC              Three months' rigorous imprisonment.
148 IPC              Three months' rigorous imprisonment.
452 IPC              Six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of

Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, to further under undergo ten days' rigorous imprisonment.

323 IPC Three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.250/- and in default of payment of fine, to further under undergo fifteen days' rigorous imprisonment.

324 IPC Four months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.250/- and in default of payment of fine, to further under undergo fifteen days' rigorous imprisonment.

325 IPC Six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.300/- and in default of payment of fine, to further under undergo twenty days' rigorous imprisonment.

326/149 IPC,         One year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of
(all                 Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to
petitionerss         further under undergo one month's rigorous
except               imprisonment.
Bhagwani)
326 IPC              One year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of
(petitioners         Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to
Bhagwani             further under undergo one month's rigorous
only)                imprisonment.

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently

The petitioners were tried for the offences by competent

criminal court and convicted vide judgment dated 14.9.2001,

which came to be upheld by appellate court vide judgment dated

24.7.2003.

During pendency of present revision petition, revisionists-

petitioner Nos.2 and 9 namely Mangi Lal and Narayan have passed

[2023:RJ-JD:34574] (3 of 5) [CRLR-650/2003]

away and therefore, the revision petition abates to the extent of

revisionists-petitioner Nos.2 and 9.

Learned counsel for the revisionists-petitioners submitted

that the sentences so awarded to the revisionists-petitioners were

suspended by this Court, vide order dated 1.8.2003 passed in S.B.

Criminal Suspension of Sentences (Bail) Application No.175/2003.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

petitioners had undergone detention for some period and the case

is pending against them since 1995. Learned counsel for the

petitioners submitted that the petitioners are facing agony of a

long protracted trial. Learned counsel submitted that both the trial

court and appellate court have overlooked the material evidence

available on record. It was vehemently submitted that there is no

evidence available on record to make out a case under Section

326 IPC. Learned counsel further urged that no X-ray plate was

produced by the prosecution and in absence thereof, the

revisionist-petitioners could not have been convicted for offence

under Section 326 IPC. Further, the delay in lodging of the FIR and

inordinate delay in examining the eye-witnesses of the incident

who were present in the village, has not been explained, which

casts doubts on their evidence and the prosecution story. Learned

counsel fervently urged that the injury inflicted upon Ratan Lal by

Bhagwati was a result of scuffle which ensued between them when

Ratan Lal was trying to molest revisionist-petitioner Bhagwati.

Learned counsel in the alternative, submitted that without

making any interference on merits/conviction, the revisionist-

petitioners may be granted benefit under the Probation of

Offenders Act, 1958 since it is the first offence committed by the

[2023:RJ-JD:34574] (4 of 5) [CRLR-650/2003]

revisionist-petitioners. It was submitted that the revisionist-

petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents and therefore,

benefit of probation may be granted to the revisionist-petitioners.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made on

behalf of the petitioners. However, he was not in a position to

dispute that the present revision petition is pending since 2003.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioners and

learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record of the case.

A perusal of the impugned judgments makes it manifest that

the alleged incident happened in the year 1994 and the present

revision petition is pending adjudication since 2003.

This Court after having considered the submissions advanced

on behalf of the revisionist-petitioners and having perused the

record of the case, does not find any error in the orders impugned

and therefore, is not inclined to set aside the order of conviction

passed against the revisionist petitioners and the same is thus,

maintained. However, this Court finds sufficient force in the

argument of learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioners that in

view of the fact that the revisionist-petitioners have no criminal

antecedents and it was their first offence and during the pendency

of present revision petition, the petitioners have not been found

involved in any criminal activity, they deserve to be granted

benefit of probation.

In the light of aforesaid discussion, precedent law and

keeping in view the limited prayer made on behalf of the

revisionists-petitioners, the present revision is partly allowed.

Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the

petitioners for the offences mentioned above, the sentences

[2023:RJ-JD:34574] (5 of 5) [CRLR-650/2003]

awarded to them are set aside by giving them benefit of

probation. It would be on the condition that the revisionist-

petitioners shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-

each, along with a surety in a like amount to the satisfaction of

the trial court for a period of one year to keep peace and maintain

good behaviour. During that period, the revisionist-petitioners

shall furnish required bail bonds within a period of three months

from the date of receipt of this order.

All pending applications stand disposed of.

Record of the case be sent back to the learned court below

forthwith.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J /tarun goyal/

Sr.No.22

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)