Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sheetal vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:16068) on 26 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:16068]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 190/2007
Sheetal S/o Shri Nemi Kumar, B/c Jain, Aged 28 years, R/o
Lohariyal Police Station, Lohariya, District Banswara
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Trivedi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Kishore Sen, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
26/03/2025
Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
against judgment and order dated 12.12.2006 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara, in Cr. Appeal
No.67/2006 whereby, the learned appellate court partly allowed
the appeal and acquitted the accused-petitioner from offence
under Section 447 IPC, but maintained his conviction for offence
under Section 323 IPC, passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) &
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gari, District Banswara vide
judgment dated 07.01.2005 and while maintaining the fine, set
aside the default sentence and instead extended the benefit of
Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioner.
Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up is that
01.07.2003, complainant Maya gave an oral report at concerned
Police Station to the effect that the accused-petitioner assaulted
[2025:RJ-JD:16068] (2 of 4) [CRLR-190/2007]
her with fist and legs. On the said report, Police registered a case
against the accused petitioner and started investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused petitioner. Thereafter, the trial court framed
charges for offences under Sections 447, 323 IPC. The accused
petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as seven witnesses in support of its case and exhibited certain
documents. Thereafter, statement of the accused petitioner was
recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 07.01.2005 convicted and sentenced
the accused petitioner for offence under Sections 447, 323 IPC.
Being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the accused
petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court,
which came to be partly allowed vide judgment dated 12.12.2006
and the learned appellate court acquitted the accused-petitioner
from offence under Section 447 but while maintaining his
conviction and fine amount for offence under Section 323 IPC,
passed by the trial court, set aside the default sentence and
instead extended him the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of
Offenders Act. Hence, this revision petition on behalf of the
petitioner against his conviction for offence under Section 323 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned
courts below have committed error in convicting the petitioner for
offence under Section 323 IPC. Counsel submits that there are
material contradictions, omissions & improvements in the
statements of the complainant as well as other witnesses and the
[2025:RJ-JD:16068] (3 of 4) [CRLR-190/2007]
whole prosecution case is totally false and the petitioner has
falsely been implicated in this case. The prosecution has
completely failed to prove its case. Hence, the impugned
judgments passed by the courts below to the extent of conviction
of the petitioner for offence under Section 323 IPC deserves to be
quashed and set aside.
Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the
respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer made by
learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that learned
courts below have rightly convicted the accused-petitioner for
offence under Section 323 IPC. Thus, the impugned judgments
passed by the courts below are just and proper and 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 petitioner for offence under Section 323 IPC before the
courts below and thus the learned courts below have rightly
convicted the accused-petitioner for the said offence. The learned
appellate court partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner and
while maintaining his conviction and fine amount for offence under
Section 323 IPC, extended him the benefit of probation under
[2025:RJ-JD:16068] (4 of 4) [CRLR-190/2007]
Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The courts below
while convicting the petitioner for offence under Section 323 IPC
have given detailed findings. Thus, this Court does not find any
illegality and perversity in the impugned judgments.
The petitioner has already deposited the fine amount of
Rs.500/- before the trial court and probation bond has also been
submitted by the petitioner.
In the light of aforesaid discussion, the petitioner 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
judgments under challenge.
Accordingly, the revision petition is hereby dismissed.
Record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
27-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
