[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sugna Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:6467) on 4 February, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:6467]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1047/2023
1. Sugna Ram S/o Keshra Ram, Aged About 63 Years, R/o
Rajera, Police Station Napasar, District Bikaner.
2. Lichhman Ram S/o Sugna Ram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Rajera, Police Station Napasar, District Bikaner.
3. Bajranglal S/o Sugna Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Rajera, Police Station Napasar, District Bikaner.
4. Lalu Ram S/o Sugna Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Rajera, Police Station Napasar, District Bikaner.
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Kisan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. NS Chandawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
04/02/2026
1. By way of the present Criminal Revision Petition, challenge
has been made to the judgment dated 19.07.2023 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, District Bikaner in
Criminal Appeal No.40/2022, whereby the appeal was partly
allowed. Vide the impugned judgment, while maintaining the
judgment of conviction dated 10.11.2022, the learned Appellate
Court set aside the order of sentence and extended the benefit of
the Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioners.
1.1 The said appeal arose out of the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Bikaner in Criminal Case No.1031/2018, whereby the petitioners
(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 03:50:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6467] (2 of 6) [CRLR-1047/2023]
were convicted for the offences under Sections 325 read with 34,
323 read with 34 and 341 read with 34 of the IPC. For the offence
under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC, the petitioners were
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a maximum
period of three years along with a fine of ₹5,000/-, and in default
of payment of fine, to further undergo two month's rigorous
imprisonment, while for the remaining offences, they were
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.
2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts relevant and
essential for adjudication of the present criminal revision are that
on 28.04.2018, the complainant Ramniwas submitted a written
report at the concerned Police Station alleging that on 27.04.2018
at about 2:00 PM, while he was proceeding outside his house, the
accused-petitioners wrongfully restrained him and assaulted him.
Upon raising hue and cry, his wife Sanju intervened to rescue him,
whereupon accused Sugna Ram caught hold of her and all the
accused-petitioners subjected her to beating.
2.1 It is further alleged that on hearing the commotion, Nandlal
rushed to the spot to intervene, whereafter he was assaulted with
an axe and lathis, as a result of which he fell unconscious. He was
thereafter taken by his uncle Hadman Ram to the Trauma Centre,
Bikaner for medical treatment. On the basis of the said report, FIR
No.52/2018 was registered and, upon completion of investigation,
a charge-sheet came to be filed against the petitioners for the
offences under Sections 323, 341 and 325 read with Section 34 of
the IPC.
(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 03:50:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6467] (3 of 6) [CRLR-1047/2023]
3. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner
for the above offence and upon denial of guilt by him, commenced
the trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution in order to
prove the offence, examined as many as 7 witnesses and
exhibited 5 documents. The accused, upon being confronted with
the prosecution evidence, in his statement under Section 313
CrPC, denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent.
4. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned
Defence Counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of the
evidence, learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused
for offence under Section 341, 323, 325 r/w 34 of the IPC vide
judgment dated 10.11.2012. Aggrieved by the judgment of
conviction, they preferred an appeal, the appeal was partly
allowed and, while maintaining the judgment of conviction, the
order of sentence was suitably modified by the learned appellate
court vide judgment dated 19.07.2023 affirming the order of
conviction and setting aside the order of sentence extended the
benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. S imultaneously, the learned
Appellate Court directed each of the appellants to deposit a sum of
₹10,000/- towards the costs of proceedings. Consequently, a total
amount of ₹40,000/- was ordered to be deposited before the
Court. Hence, this revision petition is filed before this court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
conviction recorded by the learned courts below is unsustainable
as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt. It is argued that there are material contradictions in the
(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 03:50:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6467] (4 of 6) [CRLR-1047/2023]
testimonies of the complainant, his wife and the alleged eye-
witnesses regarding the occurrence, presence of accused and the
weapon used, some stating lathi while others alleging an axe. The
so-called eye-witnesses have not supported the prosecution
version and have admitted that they neither saw the incident nor
the injuries being caused. He further submits that the medical
evidence also does not corroborate the prosecution case, as the
doctor has admitted that the injuries were about 15 days old, thus
not relating to the alleged date of incident. These vital
contradictions and infirmities were ignored by the courts below,
entitling the petitioners to the benefit of doubt. Hence, the
impugned judgments deserve to be quashed and set aside and the
petitioners deserve acquittal.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition and
submitted that both the learned trial court and the appellate court
have rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence
available on record. It is contended that minor contradictions in
the statements of witnesses do not go to the root of the case and
the prosecution has successfully proved the commission of
offences beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, no interference is
called for and the impugned judgments of conviction deserve to be
upheld.
7. This Court has thoughtfully considered the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties and has minutely
examined the record of the case. Upon such consideration, this
Court finds that the learned trial court as well as the learned
(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 03:50:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6467] (5 of 6) [CRLR-1047/2023]
appellate court have meticulously appreciated the oral and
documentary evidence and have arrived at concurrent findings of
fact, which do not suffer from any perversity, illegality or material
irregularity. The minor contradictions pointed out are natural in
the testimony of rustic witnesses and do not demolish the core of
the prosecution case. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to
interfere with the order of conviction. However, keeping in view
the nature of the offences, the manner of their commission, the
age of the incident, the age of the petitioners and the overall facts
and circumstances of the case, this Court finds it appropriate to
modify the order on the question of compensation. This Court has
also taken into consideration that the petitioners have already
faced the rigours of criminal proceedings for a considerable length
of time, have been extended the benefit of probation, and that no
useful purpose would be served by imposing an excessive
monetary burden upon them. In the interest of justice and to
strike a balance between the rights of the victim and the
reformative object of the Probation of Offenders Act, the
compensation amount deserves to be suitably reduced.
8. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 10.11.2022
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner in Criminal
Case No.1031/2018 as well as the judgment in appeal dated
19.07.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3,
District Bikaner in Criminal Appeal No.40/2022 are affirmed to the
extent of conviction.
(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 03:50:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6467] (6 of 6) [CRLR-1047/2023]
8.1 The revision petition is disposed of with modification to the
extent of compensation. The order granting benefit of probation to
the petitioners under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act,
1958 is hereby affirmed. However, the order passed under Section
5 of the Act is modified, and the petitioners are directed to deposit
a sum of Rs.5,000/- each before the learned trial court. It is
further clarified that the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of
Offenders Act shall remain with the petitioners.
9. Stay application and all pending applications, if any, are
disposed of.
10. Record be sent back.
(FARJAND ALI),J
107-chhavi/-
(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 03:50:06 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
