Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dasrath Singh And Ors vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:24370) on 20 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:24370]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 8/1996
1. Dasrath Singh S/o Shri Ugam Singh,
2. Karan Singh S/o Shri Ugam Singh,
3. Sardar Singh S/o Shri Chiman Singh,
All by caste Rajput, R/o Village Chanod, District Pali.
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumbhat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
20/05/2025
Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants
against judgment dated 17.10.1995 passed by the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge, Bali, in Sessions Case No.2/92 whereby, the
learned trial Court while convicting the appellants for offences
under Sections 324 & 323 IPC, gave benefit of Probation under
Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act to the appellants while
directing the appellants to pay compensation to the complainant.
Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up is that an FIR
was lodged at PS Sumerpur, by the complainant with the
allegations that the on 27.09.1991 accused-appellants attacked on
complainant, due to which the complainant sustained various
injuries. After thorough investigation, Police filed charge-sheet
under Sections 307, 323/34, 308, 325 & 324 IPC. Thereafter, the
trial court framed charges for offence under Sections 307, 323,
325 and 324/34 IPC against the accused appellants, who pleaded
not guilty and claimed trial.
[2025:RJ-JD:24370] (2 of 3) [CRLA-8/1996]
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as 21 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited various
documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused appellants were
recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, certain documents
were exhibited.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 17.10.1995 convicted the appellants
for offences under Sections 324 & 323 IPC, but gave them benefit
of Probation under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act while
directing the appellants to pay compensation to the complainant.
Hence, this criminal appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the court
below has committed grave error in convicting the appellants for
aforesaid offences as the prosecution has 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 and the prosecution did
not produce any independent witness of the incident. Thus, it is
prayed that the impugned judgment passed by the court below
may be quashed and set aside.
Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer
made by learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that
learned court below has rightly convicted the accused-appellants
for aforesaid offences. Thus, the impugned judgment do not
warrant any interference.
I have considered the submissions of the counsel for the
parties and perused the impugned judgment passed by the Court
below and gone through the record of the case.
[2025:RJ-JD:24370] (3 of 3) [CRLA-8/1996]
On perusal of the impugned judgment of the court below as
well as record of the case, it appears that while passing the
impugned judgment, the learned court below has 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
appellants before the court below and thus the learned court
below has rightly convicted the accused-appellants for the
aforesaid offences. The judgment passed by the court below is
detailed and reasoned order and thus, this court is not inclined to
interfere in the concurrent findings given by the court below.
In the light of aforesaid discussion, the appellants 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 judgment
under challenge.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present
criminal appeal has no substance and the same is hereby
dismissed and the judgment dated 17.10.1995 passed by the
learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bali, in Sessions Case No.2/1992 is
upheld. The period of probation of one year has already been
passed and the appellants have already deposited/paid the
compensation amount, as ordered by the trial Court.
Record, if received, be sent back.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
54-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
