Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt.Santosh vs Parshu Ram And Ors on 17 June, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:26786]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 376/2018
Smt. Santosh W/o Shri Babu Lal, By Caste Pujari, Resident Of
Salasar, Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan Through P.p.
2. Parshu Ram S/o Shri Chagan Lal, By Caste Brahman
3. Nand Kishore @ Pappu S/o Parshu Ram, By Caste
Brahman, Both The Respondent No. 2 And 3 Residents Of
Salasar, Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 29/2007
Smt. Santosh W/o Shri Babu Lal, By Caste Pujari, Resident Of
Salasar, Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Parshu Ram S/o Shri Chagan Lal, By Caste Brahman
2. Nand Kishore @ Pappu S/o Parshu Ram, By Caste
Brahman, Both The Respondent No. 2 And 3 Residents
Of Salasar, Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu, Rajasthan.
3. The State Of Rajasthan Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mayank Roy
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA
Mr. Harshvardhan
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
ORDER RESERVED ON ::: 19/05/2025
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON ::: 17/06/2025
(Downloaded on 19/06/2025 at 10:05:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:26786] (2 of 4) [CRLR-376/2018]
BY THE COURT :-
1. These two revision petitions have been preferred challenging
the judgment dated 05.12.2006, passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.1, Sujangarh in Criminal Original Case
No.394/1994, whereby although the accused-respondents Parshu
Ram and Nand Kishore were convicted for committing offences
under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), they were
acquitted of the charges under Sections 452 and 354 IPC.
Furthermore, instead of imposing a sentence, the learned Trial
Court extended to them the benefit of probation.
2. A challenge has also been made to the judgment dated
18.12.2017 passed by the Court of Appeal, whereby three appeals
being Criminal Appeal No.08/2017, 09/2017 & 10/2017--one filed
by the State of Rajasthan, one by the complainant-petitioner, and
one by the accused-respondents--were jointly disposed of.
2.1. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that Respondent
No.2 in Revision Petition No. 376/18 and Respondent No. 1 in
Revision Petition No. 29/2007, namely Parshu Ram, unfortunately
passed away during the pendency of these proceedings.
Consequently, the revision petition, to the extent it relates to him,
stands abated and is accordingly disposed of.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length
and carefully examined the record and the nuances of the matter.
3.1. The accused-respondents, Parshu Ram and Nand Kishore,
were tried for committing offences under Sections 452, 354, and
323 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Upon conclusion of a detailed
[2025:RJ-JD:26786] (3 of 4) [CRLR-376/2018]
and rigorous trial, and after meticulous appreciation of the
evidence on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused
of the charges under Sections 452 and 354 IPC but found them
guilty under Section 323 IPC.
3.2. Taking into account the age of the accused, the protracted
duration of the trial, and certain other mitigating factors, the
learned Trial Court considered it appropriate to extend the benefit
of probation to them in lieu of a sentence. The necessary
probation bonds and sureties were duly furnished, and the period
prescribed thereunder has since lapsed without any report of
adverse conduct being received.
3.3. It is noteworthy that the Trial Court carefully considered the
fact that there was no material indicating that the accused had
made any preparation to commit house trespass with the intent to
cause hurt or assault. Furthermore, the evidence also did not
support the allegation that the accused used criminal force or
committed any assault with the intent to outrage the modesty of
the victim. These findings were supported by a sound appreciation
of the facts and law and were later affirmed by the Appellate Court
upon an independent reappraisal of the same evidence.
3.4. There exists a concurrence of findings of fact by both the
Trial Court and the Appellate Court. This Court, while exercising its
revisional jurisdiction, is not expected to act as a Court of first
appeal to reappreciate or reassess evidence which has already
been judicially scrutinized and concurrently adjudicated upon by
two courts below.
[2025:RJ-JD:26786] (4 of 4) [CRLR-376/2018]
4. A perusal of the record shows that both courts arrived at
their conclusions after thorough analytical examination of the
material on record. Hence, no case is made out for interference by
this Court in revisional jurisdiction.
4.1. As regards the challenge to the grant of probation, it may be
observed that for an offence punishable under Section 323 IPC,
the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act are squarely
applicable. It is well settled that in such cases, the Trial Court
must exercise its discretion judiciously and record reasons in the
event of refusal to extend such benefit. In the instant case, the
learned Trial Judge has carefully considered all relevant factors,
including the nature and gravity of the offence, the age and
character of the accused, their antecedents, and the overall
circumstances of the case, before arriving at a just conclusion to
release the accused on probation.
5. Accordingly, there is no error, perversity, or legal infirmity in
the concurrent findings or in the order extending the benefit of
probation which would warrant any interference by this Court in
exercise of its revisional powers.
5.1. In view of the foregoing discussion, these revision petitions,
being devoid of merit, are hereby dismissed. The stay petitions
also stand disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
99-Mamta/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
