Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shravan Ram vs State And Ors. (2025:Rj-Jd:7306) on 5 February, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:7306]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 315/2007
Shravan Ram S/o Shri Likhma Ram B/c Bawari, R/o Village
Suresia, Tehsil & District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan.
2. Deva Ram S/o Nathu Ram B/c Bawari, R/o Khairuwal, Tehsil
Sadul Sahar, District Sriganganagar.
3. Birbal Ram @ Billa Ram S/o Moti Ram B/c Bawari, R/o
Khairuwal, Tehsil Sadul Sahar, District Sriganganagar.
4. Govind Ram S/o Nathu Ram B/c Bawari, R/o Khairuwal,
Tehsil Sadul Sahar, District Sriganganagar.
5. Rati Ram S/o Moti Ram B/c Bawari, R/o Khairuwal, Tehsil
Sadul Sahar, District Sriganganagar.
6. Krishan Ram S/o Bhura Ram B/c Bawari, R/o Khairuwal,
Tehsil Sadul Sahar, District Sriganganagar.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Madan Lal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP assisted by
Mr. OP Choudhary
Mr. D.S. Gharsana
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
05/02/2025
1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the
petitioner/complainant against the order dated 22.03.2007,
passed by learned Sessions Judge, District Sriganganagar in Cr.
Appeal No.45/2007 whereby the learned appellate court partly
allowed the appeal of the accused-respondents No.2 to 6 and
while affirming the judgment of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate District Sriganganagar dated 28.02.2007 passed in
[2025:RJ-JD:7306] (2 of 4) [CRLR-315/2007]
Regular Cr. Case No.03/2000 to the extent of conviction for
offences under Sections 147, 504, 323 & 342 IPC, set aside the
sentence and instead gave benefit of probation to the accused-
respondent Nos.2 to 6 under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders
Act.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up is that on
17.08.1993, petitioner/complainant gave an oral information at
Police Station Sadul Sahar, District Sriganganar to the effect that
at about 02:30 PM he was going to village Khairuwal to attend a
marriage ceremony. When he reached near Masjid, the
respondents No.2 to 6 along with other accused started abusing
him and assaulted him with lathis. On the said information, Police
registered a case against the accused-respondents and started
investigation.
3. On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused-respondents. Thereafter, the trial court
framed charges for offences under Sections 323, 342, 504, 147
323/149 IPC. The accused respondents pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as 9 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited certain
documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused respondents
were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.
5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 28.02.2007 convicted and sentenced
the accused-respondents for aforesaid offences.
6. Being aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the
accused-respondents preferred an appeal before the learned
[2025:RJ-JD:7306] (3 of 4) [CRLR-315/2007]
appellate court, which came to be partly allowed vide judgment
dated 22.03.2007. The learned appellate court while maintaining
the conviction of the accused-respondents for the aforesaid
offences, set aside the sentence as awarded by the trial court and
instead gave benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation
of Offenders Act to the accused-respondents. Hence, this revision
petition on behalf of the complainant/injured against the judgment
of the appellate court.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that learned
appellate court has committed grave error in giving benefit of
probation to the accused-respondents despite the fact that the
prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts.
Counsel submits that there is ample evidence available on record
against the accused-respondents for commission of offence. Yet,
the appellate court did not consider these aspects of the matter
and despite conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court for
aforesaid offences to the accused-respondents, the appellate court
did not award any sentence and instead gave benefit of probation
under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, which is perverse
and illegal. Thus, it is prayed that the impugned appellate
judgment may be quashed and set aside to the extent of giving
benefit of probation to the accused-respondents and the sentence
awarded by the trial court may be upheld.
8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for
the petitioner and perused the judgments of the appellate court as
well as trial court and also gone through the entire record.
9. The learned trial court, after meticulous appreciation of
evidence and considering each and every aspect of the matter, has
[2025:RJ-JD:7306] (4 of 4) [CRLR-315/2007]
convicted and sentenced the accused-respondents for offences
under Sections 147, 504, 323 & 342 IPC. The accused-
respondents filed an appeal against their conviction and sentence
before the appellate court. The learned appellate court while
taking into consideration the facts that this was the first offence of
the accused-respondents and they have been facing trial since
1993 and they also remained in custody for some time and they
are not habitual offenders, has given benefit of probation under
Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the accused-
respondents while maintaining the conviction for the aforesaid
offences.
10. 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 and has rightly extended the benefit of Probation under
Section 4 of the Act. Thus, this Court does not find any illegality
and perversity in the impugned appellate judgment and the same
does not require any interference from this Court.
11. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the petitioner has 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 appellant
judgment under challenge.
12. Accordingly, the revision petition is hereby dismissed.
13. Record of the learned courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
26-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
