Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Amersingh And Anr vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:23415) on 14 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:23415]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 379/2003
1. Amar Singh S/o Kan Singh, By caste Rajput, R/o Village
Dabariyani Kalla, Tehsil Merta, District Nagaur.
2. Shakti Singh @ Lala S/o Shri Amar Singh, By caste Rajput, R/
o Village Dabariyani Kalla, Tehsil Merta, District Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
14/05/2025
Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
against judgment and order dated 10.02.2003 passed by the
learned Special Judge SC/ST (POA) Cases, Merta, in Cr. Appeal
No.13/2002 whereby, the learned appellate court dismissed the
appeal and upheld the judgment of conviction dated 18.01.2002
passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Merta in Criminal
Regular Case No.61/1999 whereby the learned trial Court while
convicting the petitioners for offence under Sections 323 & 341/34
of IPC, extended them benefit of probation under Section 4 of
Probation of Offenders Act and total fine of Rs.500/- was imposed
under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up is that on
11.05.1999, complainant Bhanwar Singh submitted a report to the
Police Station Merta Road to the effect that on 10.05.1999 the
[2025:RJ-JD:23415] (2 of 4) [CRLR-379/2003]
accused-persons including the petitioners assaulted him and
Mahendra. On the said report, Police registered a case and started
investigation. After thorough investigation, Police filed charge-
sheet against the accused petitioners. Thereafter, the trial court
framed charges. The accused petitioners 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, statements of the accused petitioners were
recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, a witness was
examined and a documents was exhibited.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 18.01.2002 convicted the accused
petitioners for offences under Sections 323, 341/34 IPC, but gave
them benefit of probation under Section 4 of Probation of
Offenders Act and imposed fine Rs.1,000/- in total under Section 5
of the 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 10.02.2003. Hence,
this revision petition.
As per the Office report dated 06.03.2025, petitioner No.1
Amar Singh has expired on 22.12.2022. A copy of the death
certificate is also annexed. Hence, the revision petition qua the
petitioner No.1 is hereby dismissed as abated.
So far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, counsel has argued
that the courts below have committed grave error in convicting
the petitioner No.2 for aforesaid offences as the prosecution has
[2025:RJ-JD:23415] (3 of 4) [CRLR-379/2003]
failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable court. Counsel
submits that there are material contradictions, omissions &
improvements in the statements of the prosecution witnesses.
Thus, it is prayed that the impugned judgments passed by the
courts below may be quashed and set aside.
Learned Public Prosecutor 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 petitioner No.2 before the courts below and thus the
learned courts below have rightly convicted the accused-petitioner
No.2 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.
In the light of aforesaid discussion, the petitioner No.2 has
failed to show any error of law or on facts on the basis of which
[2025:RJ-JD:23415] (4 of 4) [CRLR-379/2003]
interference can be made by this Court in the impugned
judgments under challenge.
Accordingly, the revision petition is hereby dismissed.
As per the order of the trial Court, bail bonds are already
submitted by the petitioners and the petitioner No.2 is directed to
deposit the fine amount of Rs.500/- within a period of two months
from today in compliance of the order dated 18.01.2002.
Pending applications, if any, shall also decided accordingly.
Record of the case be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
3-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
