Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vimla Devi vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:42228) on 5 December, 2023
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2023:RJ-JD:42228]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 856/2022
Vimla Devi W/o Omprakash, Aged About 59 Years, R/o
Mirjewala, Tehsil And District Sriganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Jisukh S/o Shri Rampratap, R/o Mirjewala, Tehsil And
District Sriganganagar.
3. Sanjay S/o Prithviraj, R/o Mirjewala, Tehsil And District
Sriganganagar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Kinjal Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP with
Mr. CP Marwan
Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment 05/12/2023 Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- complainant against the order dated 19.04.2022, passed by learned Upper Session Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar in Cr. Appeal No.33/2018 (CIS No.78/2018) whereby the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment dated 20.02.2018, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Sri Ganganagar in Cr. Case No.370/2017 whereby the learned trial court convicted the respondents No.2 & 3 for offences under Sections 452, 323, 324, 34 IPC but gave benefit of probation under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. The respondents No.2 & 3 were directed to be released on probation (Downloaded on 06/12/2023 at 08:57:29 PM) [2023:RJ-JD:42228] (2 of 5) [CRLR-856/2022] provided each of them furnishes personal bond and a surety bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each to keep peace and maintain good behaviour. They were further directed not to repeat the offence and to appear and receive sentence when ever called upon to do so during the period of one year. The trial court also imposed Rs.2,000/- (Rs.1,000/- each) as litigation cost upon the respondents No.2 & 3. By this revision petition, the petitioner- complainant has made challenge only to the extent of benefit of probation given to the respondents No.2 & 3 by the courts below.
Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up is that on 10.01.2001, complainant Vidhya Devi submitted a Parcha Bayan to the effect that when she was alone at her home and was brooming in the porch of the house, the accused persons threatened to kill her while they were standing on the terrace. The house of the accused persons is adjacent to the house of the complainant. The accused persons jumped into the porch armed with Kassi and Balli and caused injuries to the complainant. On shouting, complainant's family members came to rescue her, upon which the accused persons ran away. On this Parcha Bayan, a case for offences under sections 307, 452, 323, 324, 34 IPC was registered by the Police against the accused-persons and commenced investigation.
On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed only against the accused Prithvi Raj and Jisukh. During the trial, accused Prithvi Raj expired and the trial court abated the proceedings against accused Prithvi. Thereafter, on an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the trial court took cognizance against accused Sanjay. Thereafter, charges of the case were framed (Downloaded on 06/12/2023 at 08:57:29 PM) [2023:RJ-JD:42228] (3 of 5) [CRLR-856/2022] against the accused-respondents No.2 & 3 for offences under Sections 452, 323, 324, 34 IPC, which they denied and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses and got exhibited various documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused respondents No.2 & 3 were recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, no witness was examined.
After considering the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the material available on record, the trial court vide judgment dated 20.02.2018 convicted the respondents No.2 & 3 for offences under Sections 452, 323, 324, 34 IPC, but extended the benefit under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act to them and imposed Rs.2,000/- (Rs.1,000/- each) as litigation cost upon the respondents No.2 & 3.
Being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, both the petitioner-complainant and accused-respondents No.2 & 3 preferred two separate appeals before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 19.04.2022. Hence, this revision petition only on behalf of the petitioner- complainant.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant argued that accused gave Kassi blow to the petitioner-complainant and this fact has been corroborated by the medical evidence. Yet, the trial court as well as the appellate court did not consider these aspect of the matter and despite conviction for aforesaid offences, they have not awarded any sentence to the accused-respondents No.2 & 3 and instead given benefit of probation under Section 4 of (Downloaded on 06/12/2023 at 08:57:29 PM) [2023:RJ-JD:42228] (4 of 5) [CRLR-856/2022] Probation of Offenders Act, which is perverse and illegal. Thus, it is prayed that the impugned judgments may be quashed and set aside to the extent of giving benefit of probation to the accused- respondent No.2 & 3 and they may be awarded sentence for the offences committed.
Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for respondents No.2 & 3 vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant and submitted that learned courts below have rightly given the benefit of probation to the respondents No.2 & 3. The impugned judgments are perfectly justified and require no interference.
I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments and also gone through the entire record.
The learned trial court has passed a well reasoned and detailed judgment while considering each and every aspect of the matter as well as evidence produced before it, which has been upheld by the appellate court. Initially, the Police exonerated the accused respondent No.3 Sanjay but later on, the trial court took cognizance against him under Section 319 Cr.P.C. After meticulous appreciation of the evidence, the learned trial court has convicted the accused-respondents No.2 & 3 for offence under Sections 452, 323, 324, 34 IPC and gave benefit of probation. The findings of the trial court has been upheld by the appellate court. Thus, this Court does not find any illegality and perversity in the impugned judgments and the same do not require any interference from this Court. Further, considering the nature of injuries and the fact that there is no other criminal antecedents against the accused- (Downloaded on 06/12/2023 at 08:57:29 PM)
[2023:RJ-JD:42228] (5 of 5) [CRLR-856/2022] respondents No.2 & 3, the trial court has rightly given the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act to the accused- respondents No.2 & 3. The accused-respondents No.2 & 3 have satisfactorily passed the period of probation of one year now.
There is no infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgments passed by the courts below and thus, the same do not warrant any interference.
Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. The record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 195-MS/-
(Downloaded on 06/12/2023 at 08:57:30 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)