Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hari Ram And Ors vs State (2024:Rj-Jd:9519) on 23 February, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2024:RJ-JD:9519]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 665/2011
Mridula Kanwar Widow of Late Shri Laxman Singhji, B/c Rajput,
Aged about 50 years, R/o Harsolav, Tehsil Merta, District Nagar
(Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Hari Ram S/o Shyama Ram,
3. Sugna Ram S/o Puna Ram,
4. Teja Ram S/o Harsukh Ram,
5. Bhanwara Ram S/o Narayan Ram
All B/c Gurjar, R/o Kalson Ki Khani, Harsolav, Tehsil Merta, District
Nagaur (Raj.)
6. Hari Ram S/o Puna Ram,
7. Tilok Ram S/o Ram Chandra,
8. Baksa Ram S/o Narayan Ram,
Res. Nos.6 to 8 are B/c Gurjar and R/o Harsolav, Tehsil Merta,
District Nagaur (Raj.)
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 371/2009
1. Hari Ram S/o Shyama Ram, B/c Gurjar
2. Sugnaram S/o Punaram, B/c Gurjar
3. Tejaram S/o Harsukhram, B/c Gurjar
4. Bhanwraram S/o Narayanram, B/c Gurjar
5. Hariram S/o Punaram, B/c Gurjar
6. Trilokram S/o Ram Chandra, B/c Gurjar
7. Baksaram S/o Narayan Ram, B/c Gurjar
All R/o village Harsolav, Tehsil Merta, District Nagaur.
----Petitioners
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishal Saraswat
Mr. Vishal Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anita Gehlot, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
23/02/2024
[2024:RJ-JD:9519] (2 of 4) [CRLR-665/2011]
Both the revision petitions have been preferred against the
judgment and order dated 06.04.2007, passed by learned Sessions
Judge, Merta in Cr. Appeal No.44/2006 whereby learned appellate
court partly allowed the appeal of the accused-persons filed against
the judgment dated 25.07.2006, passed by learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Merta in Cr. Original Case No.113/2002 and
while maintaining the conviction of the accused persons for
offences under Sections 147, 453, 427 IPC and Section 3 of PDPP
Act, reduced their sentence to the period already undergone i.e. 8
days, but maintained the fine amount.
Revision No.665/2011 has been preferred by the petitioner-
complainant challenging the reduction of the sentence of the
accused-persons for the aforesaid offences and revision
No.371/2009 has been preferred by the accused-persons against
their conviction for the aforesaid offences.
Both the revisons are being decided by way of this common
judgment.
Brief facts of the case are that on 18.03.2002, complainant
Mridula Kanwar submitted a written report at PS Gotan to the effect
that few days ago, she started the construction work of school
building of Rajeev Gandhi Swarn Jayanti Pathsala, but on the
previous night, the accused persons came and damaged the school
property, which is a government property.
On the said complaint, FIR was registered against the
accused-persons and after investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused-persons for offence under Sections 143, 453,
427, IPC and Section 3 of PDPP Act. Thereafter, the charges of the
[2024:RJ-JD:9519] (3 of 4) [CRLR-665/2011]
case were framed against the accused-persons, they denied the
same and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined eight
witnesses and exhibited various documents. Thereafter, statements
of accused-persons were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In
defence, some oral and documentary evidence were produced.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 25.07.2006 convicted the accused-
persons for offences under Sections 147, 453, 427 IPC and Section
3 of PDPP Act and sentenced them as detailed in the said
judgment.
Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the accused-
persons preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court,
which came to be partly allowed vide judgment dated 06.04.2007
and learned appellate court while maintaining the conviction of the
accused persons for the aforesaid offences, reduced their sentence
to the period already undergone i.e. 8 days, but maintained the
fine amount.
Hence these revision petitions.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant submits that
the learned appellate court has committed grave error in reducing
the sentence of the accused-persons for the aforesaid offences.
While passing the impugned judgment, the learned appellate court
has not considered the evidence and other aspects of the matter in
its right perspective. Thus, the impugned judgment of appellate
court deserves to be quashed and set aside.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused-persons
submits that the learned trial court as well as learned appellate
[2024:RJ-JD:9519] (4 of 4) [CRLR-665/2011]
court have wrongly convicted and sentenced the accused-persons
for the offences under Sections 147, 453, 427 IPC and Section 3 of
PDPP Act. Despite the fact that the prosecution has failed to prove
its case, the learned courts below have convicted and sentence the
accused-persons. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned
judgments may be quashed and set aside and they may be
acquitted for the aforesaid offences.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made by
the counsel for the petitioner-complainant and accused-persons.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned judgments and carefully gone through the record.
On perusal of the impugned judgment of the appellate court,
it appears that the learned appellate court has considered each and
every aspect of the matter while passing the impugned judgment.
The learned appellate court has rightly reduced the sentence of the
accused-persons for the aforesaid offences to the period already
undergone i.e. eight days. Further, the conviction of the accused-
persons for the aforesaid offences is also just and proper and does
not require any interference.
In the light of aforesaid discussion, the petitioner-complainant
as well as accused-persons 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 judgments under challenge.
Accordingly both the revision petitions are hereby dismissed.
Record, if received, be sent back.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
144 & 145-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
