Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shanti Lal vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:10759) on 24 February, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:10759]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 705/2024
Shanti Lal S/o Nanda, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Mohar Magari,
Chittorgarh, Dist Chittorgarh, Raj.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Bashir Mohammad S/o Sultan Mohd., Aged 53 years,
3. Hanif Mohd S/o Abdul Rehman, Aged 47 years,
4. Saiyed Khan S/o Umrao Khan, Aged 36 years,
5. Mohd. Hussain S/o Yusuf Mohd., Aged 31 years,
Respondents No.2 to 5 are b/c Musalman and R/o Kachi
Basti, Mohar Magari, Ps Kotwali, Chittorgarh, Raj.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prem Dayal Bohra
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
24/02/2025
Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the
appellant/complainant against the judgment and order dated
15.02.2024, passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention
of Atrocities Cases), Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No.54/2022
(CIS No.54/2022) whereby the learned trial court acquitted the
respondent Nos.2 to 5 from offences under Section 504 IPC and
Sections 3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act and convicted them
for offence under Sections 341, 323 IPC while extending the
benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders
Act.
[2025:RJ-JD:10759] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-705/2024]
Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up is that on
21.06.2021, complainant/appellant filed a written report at Police
Station Kotwali, Chittorgarh to the effect that on 26.01.2021, the
accused-respondent Nos.2 to 5 assaulted him with sticks and
swords while using caste oriented language. On the basis of 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 for offences under Sections 341, 323, 504 IPC and
Sections 3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act against the accused
respondents, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as 12 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, the accused-
respondents examined two witnesses and examined certain
documents.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 15.02.2024 acquitted the accused-
respondents from offences under Section 504 IPC and Sections
3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act and convicted them for
offences under Sections 341, 323 IPC while extending the benefit
of probation under Section 4 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-
respondents from offences under Section 504 IPC and Sections
[2025:RJ-JD:10759] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-705/2024]
3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act and in giving benefit of
probation to them 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-respondents for
commission of offences under SC/ST Act. Yet, the trial court did
not consider these aspects of the matter and acquitted the
accused respondents from offences under SC/ST Act. Further,
despite conviction, the learned trial court gave benefit of probation
under Section 4 of the Act to the accused-respondents, which is
per se illegal. Thus, it is prayed that the impugned judgment may
be quashed to the extent of acquitting the accused-respondents
from offences under Section 504 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) &
3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act and to the extent of giving benefit of
probation to the accused-respondents for offences under Sections
341, 323 IPC.
I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for
the appellants 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-respondents in respect of the commission of offences
under Section 504 IPC and 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-respondents from offences under Section 504 IPC and
under SC/ST Act.
[2025:RJ-JD:10759] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-705/2024]
So far as the benefit of probation extended to the accused-
respondents for the offences under Sections 341, 323 IPC is
concerned, the learned trial court has held that the accused-
respondents have been facing trial for last two years and this is
the first offence committed by them and there is no other criminal
antecedents against the accused-respondents. 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 4 of the Act to the
accused-respondents for the offences under Sections 341, 323
IPC. Thus, 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
104-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
