Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hanuman Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:4146) on 22 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:4146]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 592/2021
1. Hanuman Singh S/o Hari Singh, Aged About 66 Years, R/o
Mundota, Police Station Peelwa, District Nagaur.
2. Nand Singh S/o Hari Singh, Aged About 52 Years, R/o
Mundota, Police Station Peelwa, District Nagaur.
3. Narayan Singh S/o Rawat Singh, Aged About 84 Years,
R/o Mundota, Police Station Peelwa, District Nagaur.
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gaju Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
Mr. OP Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
22/01/2025
Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners
against judgment and order dated 08.04.2021 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.1, Parbatsar, in Cr. Appeal
No.31/2019 whereby, the learned appellate court dismissed the
appeal and affirmed the judgment and order dated 05.02.2019,
passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbatsar,
in Cr. Case No.274/2017, whereby the learned trial court while
convicting the petitioners for offences under Sections 447 & 427
IPC, gave benefit of Probation under Section 4 of Probation of
Offenders Act to the petitioners and also imposed litigation
expenses of Rs.500/- upon each of the petitioners.
[2025:RJ-JD:4146] (2 of 4) [CRLR-592/2021]
Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up is that on
21.07.2017, complainant Teja Ram submitted a written report at
Police Station Peelwa to the effect that in the intervening night of
13.07.2017 & 14.07.2017, accused persons unlawfully entered in
his field and forcibly made moat at the three side of the field and
also damaged the fodder. 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 petitioners. Thereafter, the trial court framed charges
for offences under Sections 447, 427 IPC. The accused petitioners
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 petitioners were
recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, the petitioners
produced two witnesses and exhibited certain documents.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 05.02.2019 while convicted the
petitioners for aforesaid offences, gave them benefit of Probation
under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act.
Being aggrieved by their conviction, the accused petitioners
preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which
came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 08.04.2021. Hence,
this revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that according to
the statement of Prakash Chand (PW-7), in the revenue entries,
the land in dispute was mutated in the name of petitioner Narayan
Singh, but the same was cultivated by someone other. Thus,
[2025:RJ-JD:4146] (3 of 4) [CRLR-592/2021]
offence under Section 447, 427 IPC is not at all made out against
the petitioners. The learned courts below have committed error in
passing the impugned judgments. Hence, the impugned
judgments passed by the courts below deserve to be quashed and
set aside. In support of his contentions, counsel has cited the
judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Ramavatar Vs.
State of Raj. & Ors. [(2006) WLC (Raj.) UC].
Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the
respondent-State has 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.
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 judgments passed by
the courts below are detailed and reasoned order and thus, this
court is not inclined to interfere in the concurrent findings given by
the courts below.
[2025:RJ-JD:4146] (4 of 4) [CRLR-592/2021]
The judgment cited by the counsel for the petitioners is
altogether different from the present case and thus, the same
does not help the petitioners in any manner.
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.
Stay application is also dismissed.
Record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
31-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
