Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Nanda Ram And Anr vs State And Ors. (2025:Rj-Jd:1338) on 8 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:1338]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 646/2006
1. Nunda Ram S/o Shiv Bux
2. Bahanwar Lal S/o Chothuram
Both B/c Kumhar, R/o Paloda, Tehsil Nawa, District Nagaur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Ugmaram S/o Moolaram Kumawat
3. Mularam S/o Laxman Ram Kumawat,
4. Bodulal S/o Shyojiram Kumhar,
5. Bhanwarlal S/o Shyojiram Kumhar
Respondent Nos.2 to 5 are R/o Village Palada, Tehsil Nawa,
District Nagaur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Mehta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
Mr. OP Choudhary
Mr. Rajat Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
08/01/2025
Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners
against judgment and order dated 20.06.2006 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbatsar, in Cr. Appeal
No.17/1999 whereby, the learned appellate court partly allowed
the appeal and acquitted the accused-petitioners from offence
under Section 326/149 IPC but while maintaining their conviction
for offences under Section 324, 324/149, 323, 323/149, 148 IPC,
passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) & Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, Kuchaman vide judgment dated 18.03.1999, set aside the
[2025:RJ-JD:1338] (2 of 4) [CRLR-646/2006]
sentence and instead extended the benefit of Section 4 of
Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioners.
Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up is that
21.07.1982, complainant Bodulal submitted a written report at
Police Station Kuchaman City to the effect that when he along with
other persons was going towards his house from Railway Station,
at that time, the accused persons came armed with farsi and
lathis and caused injuries to Mularam, Ugmaram, Bhanwar Lal and
the complainant. On the said report, Police registered a case
against the accused persons and started investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused persons including the petitioners. Thereafter,
the trial court framed charges for offences under Sections 326,
324, 323, 147, 148 IPC. The accused persons including the
petitioners pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as 14 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited certain
documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused persons
including the petitioners were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 18.03.1999 convicted and sentenced
the accused persons including the petitioners for aforesaid
offences.
Being aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the
accused persons including the petitioners preferred an appeal
before the learned appellate court, which came to be partly
allowed vide judgment dated 20.06.2006 and the learned
appellate court acquitted the accused-petitioners from offence
[2025:RJ-JD:1338] (3 of 4) [CRLR-646/2006]
under Section 326/149 IPC but while maintaining their conviction
for offences under Section 324, 324/149, 323, 323/149, 148 IPC,
passed by the trial court, set aside the sentence and instead
extended the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act to
the petitioners. Hence, this revision petition on behalf of the
petitioners against their conviction for the aforesaid offences.
Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the learned
courts below have committed error in passing the impugned
judgments. While passing the judgments, the courts below have
failed to appreciate the fact that as per the statements of the
prosecution witnesses, it is a case of free fight and everybody was
responsible for his own act. So far as the present petitioners are
concerned, no overt-act has been attributed to them. The
petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case due to
animosity in respect of a land dispute. Counsel further submits
that there are major contradictions, omissions and improvements
in the statements of the eye-witnesses and thus the prosecution
has completely failed to prove its case. Hence, the impugned
judgments passed by the courts below deserves to be quashed
and set aside.
Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the
respondent-State and learned counsel for the injured have
vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the
petitioners and submitted that learned courts below have rightly
convicted the accused-petitioners for aforesaid offences. Thus, the
impugned judgments do not warrant any interference.
[2025:RJ-JD:1338] (4 of 4) [CRLR-646/2006]
I have considered the submissions of the counsel for the
parties and perused the impugned judgments passed by this
Courts below and gone through the record of the case.
On perusal of the impugned judgments of the courts below
as well as record of the case, it appears that while passing the
impugned judgments, the learned courts below have considered
each and every aspect of the matter and also considered the
evidence produced before them in right perspective. The
prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts
against the petitioners before the courts below and thus the
learned courts below have rightly convicted the accused-
petitioners for the aforesaid offences. The learned appellate court
partly allowed the appeal of the petitioners and while maintaining
their conviction, extended them the benefit of probation under
Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The judgments passed
by the courts below are detailed and reasoned order. Thus, this
Court does not find any illegality and perversity in the impugned
judgments.
In the light of aforesaid discussion, the petitioners have
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
judgments under challenge.
Accordingly, the revision petition is hereby dismissed.
Record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
13-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
