Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Idan Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:10083) on 19 February, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:10083]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 347/2025
1. Idan Ram S/o Himata Ram, Aged About 44 Years, R/o
Pato Ki Basani, P.s. Khedapa, Jodhpur Rural.
2. Jiya Devi W/o Idan Ram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Pato
Ki Basani, P.s. Khedapa, Jodhpur Rural.
----Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Devendra Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
Mr. OP Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
19/02/2025
Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the accused-
appellants challenging the judgment and order dated 22.01.2025,
passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur District in Session
Case No.60/2017 to the extent of imposition of fine amount of
Rs.40,000/- as prosecution expenses. By the aforesaid impugned
judgment, the learned trial court while convicting the appellant
No.1 for offence under Sections 323, 325, 447 IPC and appellant
No.2 for offence under Section 447 IPC, extended them the
benefit of probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of
Offenders and the said benefit of probation shall only be provided
after deposition of prosecution expenses of Rs.40,000/-, out of
which Rs.30,000/- was ordered to be paid to victim Sua Devi (PW-
2).
[2025:RJ-JD:10083] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-347/2025]
Brief facts of the case are that on 27.08.2014, complainant
Dungaram filed a written report at Police Station Kherapa to the
effect that on 27.08.2014 at about 9:00 AM, the accused-
appellants unauthorisedly entered in his agriculture field and
assaulted his wife Sua Devi and daughter-in-law Geeta by lathis.
Upon which, Police registered a case against the accused-
appellants and started investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused-appellants. Thereafter, the trial court framed
charges against the accused-appellants, 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, statements of the accused-appellants were
recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 22.01.2025 while convicting the
accused-appellants for the aforesaid offences, extended them
benefit of probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of
Offenders Act. The trial court also imposed a fine of Rs.40,000/-
as prosecution expenses, out of which Rs.30,000/- was ordered to
be paid to victim Sua Devi. The trial court further ordered that the
benefit of probation shall be given to the appellants only upon
deposition of the said fine amount. Hence, this appeal challenging
the impugned judgment to the extent of imposition of fine amount
of Rs.40,000/-.
Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that he does
not challenge the finding of conviction, but the fine as imposed by
[2025:RJ-JD:10083] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-347/2025]
the trial court by way of impugned judgment while extending the
benefit of probation is on the higher side looking to the facts that
this was the first offence of the appellants and they have been
facing trial since long, therefore, it is prayed that the fine imposed
by the trial court may be waived or in the alternative, the same be
reduced appropriately.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made by
learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that the fine
imposed by the trial court is just and proper and therefore, the
same does not warrant any interference from this Court.
I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for
the appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused
the impugned judgment of the trial court and also gone through
the entire record.
By way of this criminal appeal, the appellants do not
challenge the finding of conviction, but they only challenge the
imposition of fine amount upon them by the trial court while
extending the benefit of probation.
Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 2014 and
more than 10 years have been passed. This was the first offence
of the appellants and they have also suffered the mental agony
and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all
circumstances of the case, it will be just and proper, if the fine
imposed by the trial court while extending the benefit of probation
to the appellants is reduced from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.25,000/-.
Ordered accordingly. Out of the said reduced fine amount of
Rs.25,000/-, the appellant No.1 Idan Ram shall deposit
Rs.15,000/- and appellant No.2 Smt. Jiya Devi shall deposit
[2025:RJ-JD:10083] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-347/2025]
Rs.10,000/-. It is further ordered that out of reduced fine amount
of Rs.25,000/-, the victim shall be paid Rs.20,000/- instead of
Rs.30,000/- as ordered by the trial court. The appellants are
directed to deposit the reduced fine amount of Rs.25,000/- before
the trial court within a period of fifteen days from today.
Accordingly, the criminal appeal is disposed of in the
aforesaid terms.
The records of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
54-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
