Rajasthan High Court

Mata Ram And Ors vs State (2024:Rj-Jp:39455) on 18 September, 2024

Author: Sameer Jain

Bench: Sameer Jain

[2024:RJ-JP:39455]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 200/2006
Dashrath Kumar Jat son of Shri Data Ram, resident of Village
Nangal Bawla, Tehsil Mundawar, Police Station Khirthal, District
Alwar (Raj.)
                                                   ----Petitioner/Complainant
                                    Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor

--Non-petitioner

2. Jale Singh son of Kanhaiya Lal

3. Puran Singh son of Budha Ram

4. Ran Singh son of Makhan Ram

5. Mukesh Kumar son of Shubh Ram All residents of Village Nangal Bawla, Police Station Khairthal, District Alwar (raj.)

---AccusedNon-petitioners Connected With S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 19/2006

1. Mata Ram son of Shri Kanhaiya Lal

2. Jale Singh son of Kanhaiya Lal

3. Puran Singh son of Budha Ram

4. Ran Singh son of Makhan Ram

5. Mukesh Kumar son of Shubh Ram All residents of Village Nangal Bawla, Police Station Khairthal, District Alwar (raj.) (petitioner Mataram is presently lodged in Sub-Jail Kishangarh Bas)

---Accused-Petitioners Versus State of Rajasthan through its Public Prosecutor

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naman Yadav for Mr. Pankaj Gupta (In petition No. 200/2006) Ms. Savita Nathawat (in petition No. 19/2006) For Respondent(s) : Mr. M. S. Shekhawat, PP with Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 18/09/2024

1. As per the directions of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, the present

bunch of petitions were listed before this Court under the head of

[2024:RJ-JP:39455] (2 of 7) [CRLR-200/2006]

'Legacy/Old Matters', warranting preferred hearing and early

disposal.

2. The present cross petitions are filed assailing the impugned

order dated 14.12.2005, passed by the learned District and

Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Alwar in Criminal Appeal No. 01/2005

wherein, the appeal filed by the accused-non-petitioners against

the judgment dated 14.06.2001 was partly allowed and while

upholding the conviction, non-petitioners were granted the benefit

of probation.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant in SBCRLR

No. 200/2006 titled as Dashrath Kumar Vs. State & Ors. has

drawn attention of this Court towards contents of order dated

14.12.2005, the relevant portion of the said order is reproduced

herein below:-

"12- ifj.kker% vfHk;qDr vihykFkhZ ekrkjke iq= dUgS;kyky }kjk izLrqr dh xbZ ;g vihy [kkfjt dh tkrh gS rFkk mlds fo:) fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr nks'kflf) ds vkns"k dh iqf'V djrs gq, mlds fo:) ikfjr n.Mkns"k dh iqf'V dh tkrh gSA vfHk;qDr ekrkjke iq= dUgS;kyky dks vU; izdj.k esa U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa cUnh gksuk crk;k x;k gSA bl izdj.k esa og izksMsDlu okjaV ls ryc gksdj is"k gks jgk gSaA fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk mlds fo:) ikfjr n.Mkns"k ltk HkqxrkbZ tkosA bl izdj.k esa Hkh mls U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa fy;k tkos] fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk mlds fo:) ikfjr n.Mkns"k dh ltk;kch dk tsy okjaV cuk;k tkdj lacaf/kr tsy vf/kdkjh dks fHktok;k tkosA 13- ifj.kker% vfHk;qDr vihykFkhZx.k tysflag iq= dUgS;kyky] iwj.kflag iq= cq)kjke] j.kflag iq= eD[kujke rFkk eqd"k dqekj iq= "kqqHkjke ds fo:) fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr nks'k flf) ds vkns"k fnukad 14-06-2001 dh iqf'V dh tkrh gSA mDr pkjksa vfHk;qDrx.k dks fo}ku v/kh0U;k0 }kjk /kkjk 326] 379 ds rgr n.Muh; vkjksfir vijk/kksa esa nks'keqDr ?kksf'kr fd;k x;k gSA muds fo:) "ks'k jgs vijk/kksa esa ikfjr n.Mkns"k esa vkaf"kd ifjorZu fd;k tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA

[2024:RJ-JP:39455] (3 of 7) [CRLR-200/2006]

14- ltk ds iz"u ij mHk;i{k dks lquk x;kA vihykFkhZx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk dguk gS fd ;g mudk izFke vijk/k gS] os fiNys nl o'kZ ls vUoh{kk Hkqxr jgs gSA os xjhc etnwj is"kk O;fDr gSA vr% mUgsa ifjoh{kk dk ykHk fn;k tkosA bl laca/k esa muds }kjk U;k;fd n`'VkUr && fØ0yk0fj0 jkt0 1988 ist 160 yhyk cuke jkt0 jkT;

izLrqr fd;k gSA mDr U;kf;d n`'VkUr ds gSMuksV esa ;|fi /kkjk 326 Hkk0na0la0 ds vijk/k dk o.kZu gSA ysfdu mDr fu.kZ; ds izFke iSjk dks i<+us ij gh eSa ;g ikrk gwa fd vfHk;qDrx.k ij /kkjk 326 Hkk0na0la0 ds vijk/k dk vkjksi ugha FkkA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds }kjk nh xbZ ltk vUrxZr /kkjk 323] 324] 325 Hkk0na0la0 vijk/k esa vfHk;qDrx.k dks ifjoh{kk vf/kfu;e dk ykHk fn;k x;k Fkk vkSj ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ;g vfHker O;Dr fd;k x;k Fkk fd orZeku esa ;g izpyu gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k ds laca/k esa U;k;ky; lq /kkjkRed ,oa iquZokl ds fcUnq vksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, vf/kd ls vf/kd ifjoh{kk vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa dk ykHk fn;k tkosA dfri; viokfnd ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa lqn`<+ dkjk.k vafdr djrs gq, ifjoh{kk dk ykHk nsus ls budkj fd;k x;k gSA vxj U;k;ky; vfHk;qDrx.k dks ifjoh{kk vf/kfu;e dk ykHk fn;k tkuk mfpr ugha le>rk gS rks U;k;ky; dks vfHk;qDrx.k ds vkpj.k vkSj pfj= dh fjiksVZ iqfyl ls eaxokbZ tkuh pkfg,A bl izdj.k esa i=koyh ij vfHk;qDrx.k dh iwoZnks'kflf) dk dksbZ vfHkys[k miyC/k ugha gSA 15- bl izdj.k esa ekrkjke ds vfrfjDr fdlh Hkh vfHk;qDr dks Hkk0na0la0 dh /kkjk 326 ds vijk/k dk nks'kh ugha Bgjk;k x;k gSA ekrkjke ds fo:) xaHkhj izd`fr dk vijk/k lkfcr ik;s tkus ij mls fo}ku v/kh0U;k0 }kjk ikfjr n.Mkns"k ls nf.Mr djus dk vkns"k mij fn;k tk pqdk gSA vfHk;qDr vihykFkhZx.k tysflag] iwj.kflag] j.kflag rFkk eqds"k dqekj ds fo:) /kkjk 326 Hkk0n0l0 dk vijk/k lkfcr ugha ik;s tkus ij mu ij "ks'k jgs vkjksfir vijk/kksa esa rRdky ltk;kc ugha djrs gq,] fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykUV }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n`'VkUr esa izfrikfnr fl)kUrksa dks n`f'Vxr j[krs gq, "ks'k vfHk;qDrx.k dks ifjoh{kk vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa dk ykHk fn;k tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA 16- Qyr% vfHk;qDr vihykFkhZ tysflag] iwj.kflag] j.kflag rFkk eqds"kdqekj ds fo:) ikfjr nks'kflf) ds vkn"k dh iqf'V djrs gq, ikfjr n.Mkns"k ds laca/k esa muds }kjk izLrqr dh xbZ vihy dks vkaf"kd :i ls Lohdkj djrs gq, mgsa vkjksfir vijk/kksa esa rRdky ltk;kc ugha djrs gq, vkns"k fn;k

[2024:RJ-JP:39455] (4 of 7) [CRLR-200/2006]

tkrk gS fd ;fn vfHk;qDr vihykFkhZx.k tysflag] iwj.kflag] j.kflag rFkk eqds"k dqekj }kjk ,d o'kZ dh vof/k ds fy, ikap ikap gtkj :i;s dh tekur rFkk blh dnj dh jkf"k dk Lo;a dk eqpydk lacaf/kr fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dh larqf'V ;ksX; ifjoh{kk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk pkj ds izko/kkuksa ds rgr bl vk"k; dk fd os mDr ,d o'kZZ dh vof/k esa usdpyu jgsxs] lnkpkj cuk;s j[ksxs] "kkfUr O;oLFkk cuk;s j[ksxs] vijk/k dh iqujko`fRr ugha djsaxs] U;k;ky; }kjk ryc djus ij ltk Hkqxrus ds fy, mifLFkr gks tkosaxs] izLrqr dj rLnhd djok fn;k tkos rks mi;qZDr pkjksa vfHk;qDrx.k dks ifjoh{kk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 4 ds izko/kkuksa ds rgr ifjoh{kk ij NksM+ fn;k tkosA ifjoh{kk vf/kfu;e dh /kkkjk 5 ds izko/kkuksa ds rgr mi;qDr pkjksa vfHk;qDrx.k ij nks nks gtkj :i;s dqy vkB gtkj :i;s crkSj {kfriwfrZ ds :i esa vf/kjksfir fd;s tkdj vkns"k fn;k tkrk gs fd mDr {kfriwfrZ dh vkB gtkj :i;s dh jkf"k U;k;ky; esa tek gksus ij fu;ekuqlkj ckn xqtjus fe;kn fjfotu et:c n"kjFk iq= esgjpUn dks crkSj {kfriwfrZ vnk dj fn;s tkosA vkns"kkuqlkj usdpyuh ds tekur eqpyds fo}ku v/kh0U;k0 dh larqf'V ;ksX; izLrqr dj rLnhd djok;s tkosxs rFkk {kfriwfrZ dh jkf"k Hkh fo}ku v/kh0U;k0 esa tek djokbZ tkosxhA vr% vkns"k fn;k tkrk gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k vkt ls ,d ekg dh vof/k ds vUnj vUnj tekur eqpyds is"k dj nsxs rFkk mDr {kfriwfrZ dh jkf"k tek djok nsxsA "

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant while placing

reliance upon the above-mentioned has submitted that as per

Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, any person convicted

for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, cannot be given benefit

of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short,

"the Act of 1958"). Moreover, even otherwise qua the co-accused

or convicted persons, who have abated the said offence on the

same ground, the said benefit cannot be granted.

5. In light of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that to the said extent as referred herein above, the

immunity granted under the Act of 1958 ought to be set aside.

[2024:RJ-JP:39455] (5 of 7) [CRLR-200/2006]

6. Learned counsel appearing in the connected petition i.e.

SBCRLR No. 19/2006, has submitted that the first order was

passed in the year 2001 and appellate order was passed in the

year 2005 whereby, the immunity granted, was virtually carried

out and matter as on date has rendered infructuous.

7. It is further submitted that though the accused/convicted

persons have preferred an appeal challenging the merits of the

case, on account of aforementioned reasons, the said appeal is

rendered infructuous as they have already undergone the period

of punishment in the required manner and the said fact is not

disputed by the State.

8. Furthermore, it is submitted that qua award of the convicted

person 'Mataram', the present revision petition is filed but same is

not pressed upon, as the said accused- Mataram has undergone

the sentence in another matter. Therefore, it will be meaningless

and insignificant to argue the matter on merit, thus, the revision

petition to the extent of Mataram is not pressed.

9. Additionally, it is submitted that in the case of Mukesh

Kumar, during the currency of the petition, an appeal was

preferred as Criminal Appeal No. 530/2009 wherein, Hon'ble Apex

Court acquitted the petitioner for the offence under Section 302 of

IPC. The relevant portion of the said acquittal order is reproduced

herein below:-

"7. As regards appeal of Mukesh Kumar is concerned we find that there is discrepancy with regard to the role attributed to him and injuries found. We are of the view that he is entitled to benefit of doubt in view of possibility of over-implication. Accordingly,

[2024:RJ-JP:39455] (6 of 7) [CRLR-200/2006]

his conviction and sentence are set aside and he is acquitted. He is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged."

10. In light of the above submissions, learned counsel for the

petitioners-accused in SBCRLR No. 19/2006 has prayed that the

conditions of probation as specified under Section 4 are carried

out, therefore, if same is granted, petitioner will not pursue the

appeal on merits. Lastly, learned counsel has also submitted that

qua petitioner-Mukesh Kumar, grant of immunity under Section 4

and 12 of the Act of 1958, stands qua appeal in light of the Apex

Court order whereby he was acquitted.

11. Learned counsel for the State has also supported the

aforestated contentions.

12. Heard and considered the contentions made by learned

counsel for the parties, scanned the record of the petitions and

with the consent of the parties, a common order is passed in the

instant matters. In light of the aforementioned facts and the

consensus drawn in between the parties, this Court if of the

following view:

12.1 That qua the accused-petitioner-Mata Ram, the revision

petition is not pressed, hence, the same stands dismissed in light

of the afore-stated submissions.

12.2 That qua other accused-petitioner in SBCRLR No.

19/2006 on account of the fact that appellate order was passed in

the year 2005 and on account of the fact that Mukesh Kumar has

been acquitted by Hon'ble Apex Court for offence under section

302 of IPC, in Criminal Appeal No. 530/2009, and by placing

reliance upon the Section 4 and 12 of the Act of 1958, this court

[2024:RJ-JP:39455] (7 of 7) [CRLR-200/2006]

uphold the grant of immunity under the said sections, and is of

the view that the present appeal/proceedings and order of the

learned Trial Court will not cause prejudice to the Mukesh Kumar.

12.3 That qua the other accused petitioners, as probation

period is already over and on account of the findings which are

referred above (Order dated 14.12.2005 - para 12 to 17),

whereby appropriate justifications are presented, this Court is not

inclined to disturb the findings given in order dated 14.12.2005.

13. In light of the above said, SBCRLR No. 200/2006 stands

dismissed and SBCRLR No. 19/2006 stands disposed of whereby

benefit of probation under section 4 and 12 of the Act of 1958 to

the extent of Mukesh Kumar, stands confirmed as stated in the

order dated 14.12.2005. Pending applications, if any, shall stand

disposed of.

(SAMEER JAIN),J

Pooja/10-11