Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chaina Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:14281) on 17 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:14281]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 699/2022
Chaina Ram S/o Heera Ram, Aged About 39 Years, B/c Jat, R/o
Ladpura, Ps Thawla, District Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Gopal Ram S/o Unkar Ram, R/o Ladpura, Ps Thawla,
District Nagaur.
3. Panchu Ram S/o Unkar Ram, R/o Ladpura, Ps Thawla,
District Nagaur.
4. Shiv Ji Ram S/o Unkar Ram, R/o Ladpura, Ps Thawla,
District Nagaur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : None present.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kumpawat, Asst. to
Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG
Mr. Surendra Bana, for respondents
No.2 to 4
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
17/03/2025
Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the
judgment dated 23.02.2022, passed by learned Sessions Judge,
Merta in Cr. Appeal No.54/2015 (CIS No.56/2015) whereby the
learned appellate court convicted the accused-respondents No.2 to
4 from the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 325/34 IPC
while setting aside the judgment for sentence dated 21.08.2015,
passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
[2025:RJ-JD:14281] (2 of 4) [CRLR-699/2022]
Degana, in Cr. Original Case No.403/2007 while giving benefit of
Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of a complaint
filed by the petitioner/complainant, an FIR No.113/2007 was
registered at Police Station Thanwla, under Section 447, 341, 323
and 324 IPC with the allegation that the accused-respondents
No.2 to 4 gave beating to the father of the petitioner/complainant
and his family members.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused-respondents No.2 to 4. Thereafter, the trial
court framed the charges against the accused-respondent Nos.2 to
4 for offence under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 325 IPC. They
denied the charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 10
witnesses and exhibited certain documents. Thereafter,
statements of the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4 were recorded
under section 313 Cr.P.C. and in defence one witness examined.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 21.08.2015 convicted the accused-
respondent Nos.2 to 4 for offence under Sections 341, 323,
324/34 and 325/34 IPC.
Aggrieved by their conviction, the accused-respondents No.2
to 4 preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which
came to be allowed vide judgment dated 23.02.2022 and the
appellate court while setting aside the order of sentence passed by
the trial court, gave benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders
Act to the accused respondents No.2 to 4. Hence this revision
petition.
[2025:RJ-JD:14281] (3 of 4) [CRLR-699/2022]
No one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner/complainant
even in the second round. Earlier on numerous occasions i.e.
16.01.2024 and 12.03.2025, the petitioner/complainant has not
been represented by his counsel.
It is mentioned in the revision petition that there is ample
evidence against the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4 regarding
commission of offence but the learned appellate court did not
consider the evidence and other aspects of the matter in its right
perspective and gave benefit of Probation to the accused-
respondent Nos.2 to 4 for offence under Sections 341, 323, 324
and 325/34 IPC. The learned court below has committed grave
error while granting the benefit of Probation to the accused-
respondent Nos.2 to 4 despite the finding of sentence recorded by
the trial court. Thus, the impugned judgment passed by the
appellate court deserves to be quashed and set aside and
judgment of sentence passed by the trial court may be upheld.
Learned counsel for the accused-respondents submits that
the learned appellate court has considered each and every aspect
of the matter and has rightly gave benefit of Probation to the
accused-respondents from the aforesaid offences. The impugned
judgment of the appellate court is just and proper and does not
warrant any interference.
Heard learned counsel for the respondents and perused the
impugned judgment passed by the courts below as well as the
revision petition and considered the material available on record.
On perusal of the impugned judgments of the courts below
as well as record of the case, it appears that while passing the
impugned judgment, the learned appellate court have considered
[2025:RJ-JD:14281] (4 of 4) [CRLR-699/2022]
each and every aspect of the matter and also considered the
evidence produced before the trial Court in right perspective. The
prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts
against the respondents No.2 to 4 before the courts below and
thus the learned courts below have rightly convicted the accused-
respondents No.2 to 4. However, the appellate Court noted the
absence of any record of prior convictions for the accused
respondents. Recognizing the accused respondents as a first time
offender, the Courts below appropriately granted the benefit of
Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. The judgment passed by
the appellate court is detailed and reasoned order and thus, this
court is not inclined to interfere in the concurrent findings given by
the appellate court.
In the light of aforesaid discussion, the petitioner-
complainant 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 revision petition is hereby dismissed.
Record of the courts below, if received, be sent back
forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
170-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
