Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kiran Devi vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:8930) on 13 February, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:8930]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 689/2022
Kiran Devi W/o Shri Mohan Lal, Aged About 40 Years, B/c Gurda,
R/o Village Sinthal, Tehsil And District Bikaner.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Kailshdan S/o Ramdan, Aged About 35 Years, B/c Charan,
R/o Village Sinthal, Police Station Napasar, District
Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Gehlot
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sameer Pareek, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
13/02/2025
Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the
appellant/complainant against the judgment and order dated
10.01.2022, passed by learned Special Judge, SC/St (Prevention
of Atrocities) Cases and Additional District & Session Judge,
Bikaner in Sessions Case No.73/2011 whereby the learned trial
court acquitted the respondent No.2 from offence under Section
3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act and convicted him for offence under Sections
341, 323 IPC while extending the benefit of probation under
Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders At.
Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up is that on
19.07.2011, complainant/appellant filed a complaint before the
court of MJM, Bikaner to the effect that on 11.07.2011, the
accused-respondent No.2 assaulted her and her son while using
[2025:RJ-JD:8930] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-689/2022]
caste oriented language. The said complaint was sent to the
concerned Police Station under Section 156(3). Upon which, Police
registered a case against the accused-respondent and started
investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused-respondent. Thereafter, the trial court framed
charges for offences under Sections 341, 323 IPC and Section 3(1)
(x) of SC/ST Act against the accused respondent, who pleaded not
guilty and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as 7 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited certain
documents. Thereafter, statement of the accused respondent was
recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 10.01.2022 acquitted the accused-
respondent from offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act and
convicted him for offences under Sections 341, 323 IPC while
extending the benefit of probation under Section 3 of the
Probation of Offenders Act. Hence, this appeal on behalf of the
complainant/appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that learned trial
court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused-
respondent from offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act and
in giving benefit of probation to him for offences under Sections
341, 323 IPC 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-
respondent for commission of offence under SC/ST Act. Yet, the
[2025:RJ-JD:8930] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-689/2022]
trial court did not consider these aspects of the matter and
acquitted the accused respondent from offence under SC/ST Act.
Further, despite conviction, the learned trial court gave benefit of
probation under Section 3 of the Act to the accused-respondent,
which is per se illegal. Thus, it is prayed that the impugned
judgment may be quashed to the extent of acquitting the accused-
respondent from offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act and
to the extent of giving benefit of probation to the accused-
respondent for the offences under Sections 341, 323 IPC.
I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for
the appellant and perused the impugned judgment of the trial
court and also gone through the entire record.
On perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the
prosecution has failed to produce any evidence against the
accused-respondent in respect of the commission of offence under
SC/ST Act. While passing the impugned order, learned trial court
has considered each and every aspect of the matter and thus, the
trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondent from
offence under SC/ST Act.
So far as the benefit of probation extended to the accused-
respondent for the offences under Section 341, 323 IPC is
concerned, the learned trial court has held that the accused-
resopndent has been facing trial since 2011 and there is no other
criminal antecedents against him. Taking into consideration the
overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the
opinion that the learned trial court has rightly extended the
benefit of Probation under Section 3 of the Act to the accused-
respondent for the offences under Sections 341, 323 IPC. Thus,
[2025:RJ-JD:8930] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-689/2022]
there is no illegality and perversity in the impugned judgment and
the same is just and proper.
In the light of aforesaid discussion, the appellant 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 judgment
under challenge.
Accordingly, the criminal appeal is hereby dismissed.
Record of the court below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
148-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
