Ramswaroop And Ors vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:34573)
2023 Latest Caselaw 7902 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:34573]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 735/2003

    1. Ramswaroop s/o Himta Ram, r/o Village Arniala, Tehsil
       Merta, District Nagaur
    2. Prabu Ram s/o Ramdeen, r/o Village Arniala, Tehsil Merta,
       District Nagaur
    3. Himta Ram s/o Ramdeen, r/o Village Arniala, Tehsil Merta,
       District Nagaur
    4. Rameshwar Lal s/o Pabu Ram, r/o Village Arniala, Tehsil
       Merta, District Nagaur
    5. Chena Ram s/o Himta Ram, r/o Village Arniala, Tehsil
       Merta, District Nagaur


                                                                  ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
State of Rajasthan.
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr.G.R.Poonia, Sr.Advocate
                                Dr.Shanti Choudhary.
For Respondent(s)          :    Mohd.Javed Gauri, P.P.



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                                    ORDER

04/10/2023

As per prosecution, one Tulsi Ram submitted a written report

at PS Padu Kallan, on 07.07.1998, at about 9:03 am, stating inter

alia that his sister was sweeping the house when the revisionists-

petitioners entered into the house and started beating her and

also dragged her out of the house. As per prosecution, when the

complainant's father tried to intervene, the revisionists-petitioners

started beating him also. In the aforesaid incident, revisionist-

petitioner- Rameshwar inflicted injury on the left leg of the father

of the complainant by kuwaria. Learned trial Magistrate after

[2023:RJ-JD:34573] (2 of 4) [CRLR-735/2003]

examining 11 prosecution witnesses and revisionist-petitioner

Rameshwarlal in defence, convicted the revisionists-petitioners as

under:-

i) Rameshwarlal

Sections Sentence 148 imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and ordered to undergo 1 months' SI in its default 341 15 days SI 323 3 months SI 324 6 months SI 325/149 2 years' SI and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in its default thereof, ordered to undergo 2 months' SI.

ii) Ramswaroop, Pabu Ram, Himta Ram and Chena Ram

Sections Sentence 148 imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and ordered to undergo 1 months' SI in its default 341 15 days SI 323 3 months SI 324/149 6 months SI 325/149 2 years' SI and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in its default thereof, ordered to undergo 2 months' SI.

The revisionists-petitioners being aggrieved by the judgment

of conviction and order of sentence, preferred an appeal before

the appellate court. The appellate court vide judgment dated

07.06.2003, partly allowed the appeal, while maintaining the

conviction, allowed the benefit of probation and ordered to pay

compensation to the tune of Rs.600/- each, payable to the injured

persons.

Learned counsel further submitted that the operation of the

judgment dated 7.6.2003 passed by learned appellate court below

[2023:RJ-JD:34573] (3 of 4) [CRLR-735/2003]

was stayed by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated

8.7.2004.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists-petitioners and

learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record of the case.

A perusal of the orders impugned and the record makes it

evident that the alleged incident happened in the year 1998.

Having gone through the record of the case, this Court finds that

there are various contradictions in the story narrated by the

prosecution witnesses during trial. The incident appears to have

happened on a trivial issue of removing some stones kept in front

of the nohra of Pabu Ram. Injured Shiv Ram had not spoken

anything about the revisionist-petitioner Rameshwar Lal and had

stated that injuries were inflicted by Ram Ratan and Pabu Ram.

Similarly, Ram Ratan son of Pabu Ram, allegedly inflicted injuries

upon Shiv Ram. The Court finds that contradictions in the

statements of Shiv Ram, makes him an unreliable witness as Ram

Ratan has not even been made an accused in the case. This Court

also finds that the prosecution story is absolutely doubtful as there

is no independent eye-witness, though the incident had happened

in an open area during broad daylight and there is cross case

between the parties. This Court also finds that the trial case has

not decided the cross cases together and thus, the case of

revisionist-petitioners getting prejudiced cannot be ruled out. The

appellate court has also failed to consider these legal and factual

aspects in the appeal and thereby, committed illegality in

maintaining the conviction.

In the result, the present revision petition is allowed. The

judgments dated 04.04.2002 and 07.06.2003, passed by learned

[2023:RJ-JD:34573] (4 of 4) [CRLR-735/2003]

Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Merta and learned Special Special

Judge, SC/ST Cases Court, Merta are quashed and set aside. The

revisionists-petitioners stand discharged of all the charges levelled

against them by the prosecution.

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.26

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)