Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Suman Devi vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:19916) on 24 April, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:19916]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 449/2025
1. Suman Devi W/o Bhiyan Ram, Aged About 47 Years,
2. Narayani Devi W/o Modu Ram, Aged About 81 Years,
3. Budha Ram S/o Modu Ram, Aged About 48 Years,
All Resident Of Village Kerap, Police Station, Khunkhuna
District Nagaur Rajasthan
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. BR Chahar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG assisted
by Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kumpawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
24/04/2025
Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners
against judgment and order dated 21.03.2025 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deedwana, District Nagaur, in
Cr. Appeal No.22/2018 whereby, the learned appellate court partly
allowed the appeal and while maintaining the petitioners'
conviction for offences under Section 323/34, 324/34, 325/34,
452/34 IPC, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana,
District Nagaur vide judgment dated 03.04.2018, set aside their
sentence and instead extended them the benefit of Section 4 of
Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioners. The appellate court
also imposed fine of Rs.10,000/- upon each of the petitioners
under Section 5 of the Act.
[2025:RJ-JD:19916] (2 of 4) [CRLR-449/2025]
Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up is that
30.04.2015, complainant Chenaram submitted a written report at
Police Station Khunkhuna to the effect that the petitioners
assaulted his uncle Dheraram, Sukhdev and Ratni Devi by deadly
weapon when they were at their home. On the said report, Police
registered a case against the accused petitioner and started
investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused petitioners. Thereafter, the trial court framed
charges. The accused petitioners pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as 11 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited certain
documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused petitioners were
recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, three witnesses
were examined and some documents were exhibited.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 03.04.2018 convicted and sentenced
the accused petitioners for aforesaid offences.
Being aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the
accused petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned
appellate court, which came to be partly allowed vide judgment
dated 21.03.2025 and the learned appellate court while
maintaining the petitioners' conviction for offences under Sections
323/34, 324/34, 325/34, 452/34 IPC, passed by the trial court,
set aside their sentence and instead extended them benefit of
Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act and also imposed a fine of
Rs.10,000/- upon each of the petitioners under Section 5 of the
[2025:RJ-JD:19916] (3 of 4) [CRLR-449/2025]
Act. Hence, this revision petition on behalf of the petitioners
against their conviction for the aforesaid offences.
Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the learned
courts below have committed grave error in passing the impugned
judgments. While passing the judgments, the courts below have
failed to appreciate the fact that there are major contradictions,
omissions and improvements in the statements on the injured and
other prosecution witnesses and thus the prosecution has
completely failed to prove its case. Further, no weapon was
recovered from the possession of the petitioners in this case,
therefore, it cannot be asserted that the story of the prosecution
is one of veracity. Moreover, injured Sukhdev sustained only one
grievous injury addition to several simple injuries and injured
Ratani Devi sustained only simple injuries. In such circumstances,
the learned courts below have wrongly convicted the petitioners
for the aforesaid offences. The learned appellate court while
extending the benefit of probation to the petitioners has imposed
a fine of Rs.10,000/- upon each of the petitioners, which is per se
illegal. Thus, the impugned judgments passed by the courts below
deserves to 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 petitioners and submitted that learned
courts below have rightly convicted the accused-petitioners for
aforesaid offences. Thus, the impugned judgments do not warrant
any interference.
[2025:RJ-JD:19916] (4 of 4) [CRLR-449/2025]
I have considered the submissions of the counsel for the
parties and perused the impugned judgments passed by this
Courts below and gone through the record of the case.
On perusal of the impugned judgments of the courts below,
it appears that while passing the impugned judgments, the
learned courts below have considered each and every aspect of
the matter and also considered the evidence produced before
them in right perspective. The prosecution has proved its case
beyond all reasonable doubts against the petitioners before the
courts below and thus the learned courts below have rightly
convicted the accused-petitioners for the aforesaid offences. The
learned appellate court partly allowed the appeal of the petitioners
and while maintaining their conviction, extended them the benefit
of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and
also imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 5 of the Act. The
judgments passed by the courts below are detailed and reasoned
order. Thus, this Court does not find any illegality and perversity in
the impugned judgments.
In the light of aforesaid discussion, the petitioners 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 impugned
judgments under challenge.
Accordingly, the revision petition is hereby dismissed.
Stay application is also dismissed.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
9-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
