Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Omaram And Ors vs State (2024:Rj-Jd:24737) on 29 May, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2024:RJ-JD:24737]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 444/2006
Oma Ram S/o Jetha Ram, B/c Mali, R/o Tiwari, PS Mathania,
Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Oma Ram S/o Lachhi Ram,
3. Lachhi Ram, S/o Likhma Ram,
4. Hema Ram S/o Likhma Ram,
5. Bhanwara Ram S/o Sita Ram,
6. Ghevar Ram S/o Rana Ram,
7. Mula Ram S/o Mishri Lal,
All B/c Mali, R/o Village Tiwari, PS Mathania, Tehsil Osian,
District Jodhpur.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 512/2006
1. Oma Ram S/o Lachhi Ram,
2. Lachhi Ram, S/o Likhma Ram,
3. Hema Ram S/o Likhma Ram,
4. Bhanwara Ram S/o Sita Ram,
5. Ghevar Ram S/o Rana Ram,
6. Mula Ram S/o Mishri Lal,
All B/c Mali, R/o Village Tinwari, Tehsil Osian District Jodhpur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Jetha Ram S/o Nena Ram,
3. Oma Ram S/o Jetha Ram,
Both B/c Mali, R/o Village Tinwari, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. JS Choudhary, Sr. Adv. assisted by
Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
Ms. Sampathi Choudhary (No.512/06)
Mr. Parvin Vyas (No.444/2006)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP assisted by
Ms. Kamla Goswami
(Downloaded on 30/05/2024 at 09:04:13 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:24737] (2 of 4) [CRLR-444/2006]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
29/05/2024
Both the revision petitions have been preferred against the
judgment and order dated 05.04.2006, passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Jodhpur in Cr. Appeal No.59/2004
whereby learned appellate court partly allowed the appeal of the
accused-persons filed against the judgment dated 31.07.1999,
passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur in Cr. Original
Case No.53/1993 and instead of offence under Section 326 IPC,
convicted the accused Jetharam for offence under Section 325 IPC
and instead of offence under Section 326/149 IPC, convicted the
rest of the accused persons for offence under Section 325/149 and
so far as sentence is concerned, the appellate court while setting
aside the sentence awarded by the trial court for the offences,
extended the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offeners Act
to the accused-respondents.
Revision No.444/2006 has been preferred by the petitioner-
injured challenging the judgment of the appellate court extending
the benefit of probation to the accused persons
Revision No.512/2006 has been preferred by the accused-
persons against their conviction for the offences mentioned in the
impugned judgment.
Since, both the revision petitions arise from the same
judgments, therefore, they are being decided by way of this
common judgment.
[2024:RJ-JD:24737] (3 of 4) [CRLR-444/2006]
Brief facts of the case are that on 19.11.1992, complainant
Hajariram submitted a report at PS Mathania to the effect that the
accused persons came armed with iron rod and lathies and
attacked injured Omaram. When injured Jetharam and Patasi came
to rescue Omaram, the accused persons also gave beating to them.
On the said report, FIR was registered against the accused-persons
and after investigation, the police filed challan. Thereafter, the
charges of the case were framed against the accused-persons, they
denied the same and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined ten
witnesses. Thereafter, statements of accused-persons were
recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, two witnesses were
examined.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 31.07.1999 convicted and sentenced the
accused-persons 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 05.04.2003
and learned appellate court modified the judgment of the trial court
and extended the benefit of probation to the accused persons.
Hence, these revision petitions.
In Revision No.444/2006, preferred by the injured, counsel
submits that the learned appellate court has committed grave error
in reducing the sentence of the accused-persons for the offences.
While passing the impugned judgment, the learned appellate court
has not considered the evidence and other aspects of the matter in
[2024:RJ-JD:24737] (4 of 4) [CRLR-444/2006]
its right perspective. Thus, the impugned judgment of appellate
court deserves to be quashed and set aside.
In Revision No.512/2006, preferred by the accused persons,
counsel submits that the learned trial court as well as learned
appellate court have wrongly convicted and sentenced the accused-
persons for the offences. 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 from the offences.
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 extended the benefit of
probation to the accused persons. Further, the conviction of the
accused-persons for the offences is also just and proper and does
not require any interference.
In the light of aforesaid discussion, the petitioner-injured 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
34 & 35-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
