Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt.Pyari Devi vs State And Ors. (2025:Rj-Jd:8734) on 12 February, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:8734]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 779/2007
Smt. Pyari Devi W/o Late Shri Phoosa Ram, Aged 60 years, R/o
Village Khokhari, Tehsil Ladnu, District Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Magha Ram S/o Mota Ram,
3. Arja Ram @ Arjun Ram S/o Magha Ram,
4. Jetha Ram S/o Magha Ram
5. Bhanwara Ram S/o Mohan Ram
6. Bhanwara Ram S/o Asha Ram
7. Lachha Ram @ Lichman Ram S/o Asha Ram
8. Mohan Ram S/o Narayan Ram,
9. Asha Ram S/o Mota Ram
10. Sada Ram S/o Bhagwana Ram
11. Gena Ram S/o Magha Ram
All B/c Jat and R/o Village Khokhari, Tehsil Ladnu, District
Nagaur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. GR Punia, Sr. Adv. assisted by
Ms. Shanti Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
Mr. OP Choudhary
Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
12/02/2025
Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
against the order dated 20.01.2007, passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Deedwana in Cr. Appeal No.07/2005 whereby the
learned appellate court partly allowed the appeal of the accused-
respondents and while affirming the judgment of the learned Civil
Judge (Jr. Division) & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ladnu,
District Nagaur, dated 27.04.2005 passed in Cr. Regular Case
No.183/2001 to the extent of conviction for offences under
[2025:RJ-JD:8734] (2 of 4) [CRLR-779/2007]
Sections 147, 148, 458, 323 IPC R/w Section 149 IPC, set aside
the sentence and instead gave benefit of probation to the
accused-respondents under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders
Act.
Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up is that on
22.0.1998, complainant Phusaram gave a typed report at Police
Station Ladnu to the effect that the accused-respondents
unauthorizedly entered in his house armed with deadly weapon
and assaulted him and his wife. On the said report, Police
registered a case against the accused-respondents and started
investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused-respondents. Thereafter, the trial court
framed charges. The accused respondents pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as eight witnesses in support of its case and exhibited certain
documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused respondents
were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, one witness
was examined as DW-1 and certain documents were exhibited.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 27.04.2005 convicted and sentenced
the accused-respondents for aforesaid offences.
Being aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the
accused-respondents preferred an appeal before the learned
appellate court, which came to be partly allowed vide judgment
dated 20.01.2007. The learned appellate court while maintaining
the conviction of the accused-respondents for the aforesaid
[2025:RJ-JD:8734] (3 of 4) [CRLR-779/2007]
offences, set aside their sentence as awarded by the trial court
and instead gave benefit of probation to the accused-respondents.
Hence, this revision petition against the judgment of the appellate
court.
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.
Learned counsel for the accused-respondents submits that
the judgment passed by the appellate court is just and proper and
the same does not warrant any interference from this Court.
I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for
the parties and perused the judgments of the appellate court as
well as trial court and also gone through the entire record.
The learned trial court, after meticulous appreciation of
evidence and considering each and every aspect of the matter, has
convicted and sentenced the accused-respondents for offence
[2025:RJ-JD:8734] (4 of 4) [CRLR-779/2007]
under Sections 147, 148, 458, 323 IPC R/w Section 149 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 the incidents relates
back to the year 1998 and in the incident, only one injury was
caused by accused Magharam to injured/petitioner Pyari Devi and
the prosecution failed to prove the scuffle between the parties and
the offence does not found to be proved against the accused-
respondents, has given benefit of probation under Section 4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act to the accused-respondents while
maintaining their conviction for the aforesaid offences.
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.
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.
Accordingly, the revision petition is hereby dismissed.
Record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
27-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
