Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Megha Ram vs Misa Ram And Anr. (2025:Rj-Jd:42981) on 24 September, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:42981]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 431/2009
Megha Ram S/o Bhugan Ram, B/c Jat, R/o Rama Charanan
Basani, PS Merta City, District Nagaur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Misa Ram S/o Bhugan Ram, B/c Jat, R/o Rama Charanan
Basani, PS Merta City, District Nagaur (Raj.)
2. State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Choudhary, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
Mr. Mukesh Mehriya, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
24/09/2025
Instant revision petition has been filed by the
petitioner/complainant against judgment and order dated
12.02.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta, in Cr.
Appeal No.56/2008 whereby, the learned appellate court partly
allowed the appeal and while maintaining conviction of the
respondent No.1 for offence under Section 341, 323, 325 IPC,
passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Merta, vide
judgment dated 17.07.2008, set aside his sentence and extended
him the benefit of probation under Section 4 of Probation of
Offenders Act. The appellate court also imposed fine of Rs.7,000/-
upon the respondent No.1, which shall be disbursed to the
complainant/petitioner.
(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 10:40:32 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42981] (2 of 4) [CRLR-431/2009]
Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up is that on
13.02.2007, the petitioner/complainant Megha Ram gave parcha
bayan to the Police at Government Hospital, Merta City to the
effect that the accused-persons including the respondent No.1
assaulted him. On the basis of the said parcha bayan, Police
registered a case against the accused persons including the
respondent No.1 and started investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused persons including the respondent No.1 for
offences under Sections 341, 323, 325/34 IPC. Thereafter, the
trial court framed charges. The accused persons including
respondent No.1 pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as eight witnesses in support of its case and exhibited certain
documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused persons
including the respondent No.1 were recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C. In defence, Police statement of injured Megharam was
produced as Ex-D/1.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 17.07.2008 convicted and sentenced
the accused respondent No.1 for aforesaid offences.
Being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the accused
respondent No.1 preferred an appeal before the learned appellate
court, which came to be partly allowed vide judgment dated
12.02.2009 and the learned appellate court while maintaining the
conviction of the accused-respondent No.1 for offences under
Sections 341, 323, 325 IPC, passed by the trial court, set aside his
sentence and extended him benefit of probation under Section 4
(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 10:40:32 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42981] (3 of 4) [CRLR-431/2009]
of Probation of Offenders Act and also imposed a fine of
Rs.7,000/- upon him. Hence, this revision petition on behalf of the
petitioner/complainant.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that learned
appellate court has committed grave error in giving benefit of
probation to the accused-respondent No.1 despite the fact that
the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts.
Counsel submits that there is ample evidence available on record
against the accused-respondent No.1 for commission of offence.
Yet, the appellate court did not consider these aspects of the
matter and despite conviction and sentence awarded by the trial
court for aforesaid offences to the accused-respondent No.1, the
appellate court did not award any sentence and instead gave
benefit of probation under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act,
which is perverse and illegal. Thus, it is prayed that the impugned
appellate judgment may be quashed and set aside to the extent of
giving benefit of probation to the accused-respondent No.1 and
the sentence awarded by the trial court may be upheld.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has opposed the
submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted
that the judgment passed by the learned appellate court is just
and proper and does not warrant any interference from this Court.
I have considered the submissions of the counsel for the
parties and perused the impugned judgments of the appellate
court as well as trial court and gone through the record of the
case.
The learned trial court, after meticulous appreciation of
evidence and considering each and every aspect of the matter, has
(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 10:40:32 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42981] (4 of 4) [CRLR-431/2009]
convicted and sentenced the accused-respondent No.1 for offence
under Sections 341, 323, 325 IPC. The accused-respondent No.1
filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence before the
appellate court. The learned appellate court while taking into
consideration the facts that the complainant and the respondent
No.1 are real brother and the accused-respondent No.1 is an old
person of 50 years and he is facing trial from last two years, has
given benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of
Offenders Act to the accused-respondent No.1 while maintaining
his conviction for the aforesaid offences.
On perusal of the impugned judgment of the appellate court,
it appears that the learned appellate court has considered each
and every aspect of the matter while passing the impugned
judgment and has rightly extended the benefit of Probation under
Section 4 of the Act to the accused-respondent No.1. Thus, this
Court does not find any illegality and perversity in the impugned
appellate judgment and the same does not require any
interference from this Court.
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 appellant
judgment under challenge.
Accordingly, the revision petition is hereby dismissed.
Record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
20-MS/-
(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 10:40:32 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
