Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shankar Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:8075) on 15 February, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2024:RJ-JD:8075]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 67/2021
1. Shankar Singh S/o Sh. Chain Singh, Aged About 54
Years, R/o Bhutala Fala, Godawato Ki Bhagal, Police
Station Gogunda, Dist. Udaipur.
2. Smt. Puran Bai W/o Sh. Shankar Singh, Aged About 53
Years, R/o Bhutala Fala, Godawato Ki Bhagal, Police
Station Gogunda, Dist. Udaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Singh Rawal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
15/02/2024
The instant criminal appeal under Section 11(2) of Probation
of Offenders Act, 1958 has been filed by the appellants against the
judgment dated 23.11.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Udaipur in Sessions Case
No.201/2017 (CIS No.153/2017) whereby the learned Judge while
convicting the appellants for offences under Sections 341, 323
R/w Section 34 IPC, extended the benefit of Section 4(1) of
Probation of Offenders Act. The appellants were directed to be
released on probation provided each of them shall furnish personal
bond of Rs.10,000/- and a surety bond of the like amount to
maintain peace and good behaviour for a period of one year. They
were further directed not to repeat the offence and to appear and
[2024:RJ-JD:8075] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-67/2021]
receive the sentence whenever called upon to do so during the
period of one year. The trial court also imposed fine of Rs.5,000/-
upon each of the appellants, which was ordered to be disbursed to
the injured Himmat Singh.
Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up is that
18.06.2015, complainant Devi Singh submitted a written report at
Police Station Gogunda, District Udiapur inter-alia alleging therein
that when he was going towards his field, on the way the accused-
appellants came armed with iron rod and sticks and caused
injuries to his son Himmat Singh. On this report, Police registered
a case for offences under sections 341, 307, 323 R/w Section 34
IPC against the accused-appellants and commenced investigation.
On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed
against the accused-appellants. Thereafter, charges of the case
were framed for offences under Sections 341, 323, 308 R/w
Section 34 IPC, which they denied and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as seven witnesses and got exhibited various documents.
Thereafter, statements of the accused appellants were recorded
under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C.
After considering the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses and the material available on record, the trial court vide
judgment dated 23.11.2020 convicted the appellants for offences
under Sections 341, 323 R/w Section 34 IPC, but extended the
benefit under Section 4(1) of Probation of Offenders Act and
imposed fine of Rs.5,000/- upon each of the appellants.
Hence, this criminal appeal.
[2024:RJ-JD:8075] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-67/2021]
Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the trial
court has committed grave error in convicting and sentencing the
appellants for aforesaid offences as there are material
contradictions, omissions & improvements in the statements of the
witnesses. Thus, it is prayed that the impugned judgment
convicting the appellants may be quashed and set aside.
Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the
respondent-State vehemently opposed the prayer made by
learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that against
appellant No.1 Shankar Singh as many as eight cases were
registered and there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution
evidence. Learned trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced
the accused-appellants for the aforesaid offences. He prayed that
the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court may
be sustained and sentence awarded to the accused-appellants be
maintained by this Court.
I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for
the accused-appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor and
also gone through the entire record.
From the findings recorded by the trial Court, I am satisfied
that the accused-appellants have rightly been convicted and
sentenced for offence under Sections 341, 323 R/w Section 34 IPC
by the trial court and extended the benefit of Section 4 of
Probation of Offender Act while directing them to maintain peace
and good behaviour for a period of one year. The said period of
one year has satisfactorily been passed by the appellants. The
appellants have also deposited the fine amount as imposed by the
trial court. Thus, this Court does not find any illegality and
[2024:RJ-JD:8075] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-67/2021]
perversity in the impugned judgment and the same does not
require any interference from this Court.
Accordingly, the criminal appeal is hereby dismissed. The
trial court is directed to disburse the fine amount as deposited by
the appellants, in favour of the injured Himmat Singh.
The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
35-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
