Bhanwar Lal vs State
2023 Latest Caselaw 7746 Raj

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
           S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 808/2002

Bhanwar Lal S/o Shri Bhajja by caste Dangi, R/o Sindhu Thana,
Tehsil Mawli, District Udaipur
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State of Rajasthan
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. Pankaj Gupta
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Abhishek Purohit, AGA



             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                     Order

Judgment pronounced on : 29/09/2023
Judgment reserved on : 19/07/2023

By the Court :

1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition under

Section 397/401 CrPC, challenge has been made to the judgment

dated 11.06.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge No.1, Udaipur in Criminal appeal No.32/2001, whereby the

learned appellate court affirmed the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence dated 12.09.2001 passed by learned Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mawli, District Udaipur in Criminal

Regular Case No.306/1997; whereby the petitioner has been

convicted for the offences under Sections 323 and 341 IPC and a

fine of Rs.1000/- and Rs.100/- respectively for these counts has

been imposed upon the petitioner, with further stipulation that in

the event of default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple

imprisonment of 11 days.

(2 of 6) [CRLR-808/2002]

2. Bereft of elaborate details, the facts relevant and essential

for disposal of the instant revision are that on 10.09.1995, one

Barda S/o Pema submitted a report (Ex.P/1) to the effect that in

the morning of that day at around 07.00 a.m. his wife Mangi was

going to well for bringing fodder. On the way, near Bavji Ki Vani,

Bhanwar Lal S/o Bhajja, who was wearing only an underwear,

accosted her, caught her hand, pulled her and blabbered in

obscene language proclaiming his intent to outrage her modesty.

She freed her hand, upon which the accused slapped her and gave

a blow with a stick on her waist and started scuffling with her.

She raised her voice, hearing which the complainant ran to the

place of incident and snatched the stick from the accused. Radhu

Ba and Devi Lal also came to the spot. Mangi received injuries on

her face and waist in the incident.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, FIR No.158/1995 was

registered at the Police Station Mawali and investigation was

commenced. The police reached the place of incident, prepared

the spot documents, recorded the statements of the witnesses and

got the victim medically examined. After completion of

investigation, a charge-sheet for the offences under Sections 341

and 323 came to be filed against the petitioner in the Court of

Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Mawali, from where the case was

transferred to the trial court.

(3 of 6) [CRLR-808/2002]

4. The learned trial court framed charges against the petitioner

for the offences under Sections 341 and 323 IPC and read over

the same to the accused, upon which, the accused pleaded not

guilty and claimed trial.

5. During the course of the trial, the prosecution in order to

prove its case, examined 5 witnesses, namely, Mangi Bai (P.W.1),

Varda (P.W.2), Devi Lal (P.W.3), Bholi Ram (P.W.4) and Vakta

(P.W.5) and exhibited documents Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/4.

6. The accused, upon being confronted with the prosecution

allegations, in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, denied the

allegations and claimed to be innocent. He submitted that the

complainant party had beaten him two days before the incident

and he had reported the incident to the police and for that reason

he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He did not

examine any witness in defence but exhibited 8 documents from

Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/8. Then, after hearing the learned Public

Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel and upon meticulous

appreciation of the evidence, learned trial court convicted the

accused for offences under Sections 341 and 323 IPC vide

judgment dated 12.09.2001. Aggrieved by the judgment of

conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the

learned appellate court vide judgment dated 11.06.2002 while

affirming the judgment passed by the trial court. Hence, this

revision petition is preferred before this court.

(4 of 6) [CRLR-808/2002]

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case due to previous

enmity. 2 out of 5 witnesses have been declared hostile. There

are various contradictions in the statements of the complainant

Varda (P.W.2) and his wife Mangi (P.W.1). The prosecution has not

examined the Investigating Officer and the Medical Officer, who

prepared the injury report (Ex.P/2) of the victim. The prosecution

has failed to prove occurrence of the incident by producing

sufficient evidence on record. Thus, the learned trial court as well

as the learned appellate court have committed an error of law in

appreciating the evidence brought on record. Hence, it is prayed

that the impugned judgments may be quashed and set aside and

the petitioner may be acquitted from the charges.

8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the

submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner

and has submitted that there are concurrent findings of the two

courts of competent jurisdiction on the point of guilt of the

petitioner. The prosecution has been able to prove the offences

alleged against the petitioner beyond any reasonable doubt and

despite that, the learned trial court has taken a lenient view while

awarding punishment and has just imposed fine upon the

petitioner instead of awarding him jail term. Hence, no

interference is called for in the impugned judgments.

(5 of 6) [CRLR-808/2002]

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as

the learned Public Prosecutor at length and have gone through the

record of the case.

10. The learned trial court has meticulously examined and

discussed the evidence brought on the record and has given a

finding that though two of the prosecution witnesses have been

declared hostile, but based on the statements of the witnesses,

the prosecution has been able to prove the occurrence and

commission of offences by the petitioner. The trial court has noted

that it is true that the Investigating Officer and the Medical Officer

were not examined during trial, but nonetheless the prosecution

story is fully corroborated by the injury report (Ex.P/2) and other

documents placed on record. Regarding previous enmity and false

implication, the learned trial court has observed that rivalry is a

double-edged sword and it is also a possibility that the accused

committed the offence due to such enmity. The learned trial court

despite recording finding of guilt against the accused has taken a

lenient view and instead of sentencing him to undergo

imprisonment, has just imposed fine upon him. The learned

appellate court on a reappraisal of the evidence, agreed with the

findings recorded by the trial court and confirmed the conviction and

the punishment awarded. Thus, there are concurrent findings of two

courts of competent jurisdiction regarding culpability of the

accused petitioners. It is a well-settled position of law that

revisional court is loath to interfere with the concurrent findings

on facts recorded by the courts below unless glaring features

(6 of 6) [CRLR-808/2002]

which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice

are brought to the notice of the Court. In the case at hand, I find

no ground, either legal or factual, which may require interference

of this court in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence

in exercise of powers under Section 397/401 of the CrPC. I find

no illegality, perversity of impropriety in impugned judgments

passed by the learned courts below. The revision petition is

bereft of any merit and hence, the same is dismissed.

(FARJAND ALI),J Pramod

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)