Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State vs Jeetu Ram And Ors on 11 May, 2022
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 419/2001
Deva Ram
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 850/2001
State
----Petitioner
Versus
Jeetu Ram And Ors
----Respondent
For Com/Pet.(s) : Mr. R.K. Soni
For State/Pet. : Mr. Anda Ram Choudhary PP
For accused/resp. : None present.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment 11/05/2022
1. The present criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. and the instant criminal appeal, have been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
Revision Petition No. 419/2001:
"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this revision petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 3.5.2011, passed by learned ACJM, Nagaur in Criminal Case No. 298/97 (68/2000), State versus Jeetu Ram and others, so far as it relates to giving benefit of probation to all the convicted accuseds respondents, acquitting the accused (Downloaded on 17/05/2022 at 08:14:51 PM) (2 of 7) [CRLR-419/2001] persons of the offences 326, 447 and also under Sections 147, 148, 447, 323, 325 or 323, 325 read with 149 IPC may kindly be quashed and set aside and the case be remanded back to the learned trial Court for a fresh decision on above points, for convicting all the accuseds persons for all the offences charged and awarding appropriate sentences to the accuseds and also for summoning the Mukesh son of Radha Kishan of village Kathoti, Tehsil Jayal District Nagur for the trial on the above charges as per law. Alternatively all the convicted accused persons may kindly be awarded maximum awardable punishment. Any other appropriate relief which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioner, may kindly be granted to the petitioners."
Criminal Appeal No. 850/2001:
"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that leave to appeal may kindly be accepted and appeal may kindly be allowed. The impugned judgment dated 03.05.2001 passed by the learned trial court may kindly be quashed and set aside and accused-respondents Ganpat Ram Ganesh Ram, Ram Niwas, Karan Singh, Sukharam @ Sukhdev s/o Ganpat Ram, Sukha Ram @ Sukhdev s/o Karan Singh may kindly be punished/convicted and sentenced for the offence u/s 147, 148, 447, 341, 323, 325 & Sec.323, 325 read with Sec. 149 & Sec.326 IPC and accused-respondents Jeetu Ram, Hanuman Ram, Heriram, Bhanwar Lal and Rajendra for the offence under Section 447 & 326 IPC."
Thus, the present revision petition and the criminal appeal both assail the same impugned judgment.
2. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court are that on the basis of a written report lodged by complainant/petitioner- Devaram on 20.09.1994, at 08:15 p.m., before the Aarkshi Kendra, Jayal, an F.I.R. bearing No.77/1994 was registered at Police Station Jayal, against the accused-respondents and one Mukesh, S/o Radha Kishan of village Kalhoti, Tehsil Jayal, District (Downloaded on 17/05/2022 at 08:14:51 PM) (3 of 7) [CRLR-419/2001] Nagaur, for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 307, 323 and 379 I.P.C. stating therein that on the same day, at about 5/6 p.m., the above-named persons had beaten up the complainant's brother Mohan Ram with farcies, bhals and lathis, who sustained injuries on his person as a result of such assault. And that, while leaving from the scene, they took with them a brass bhanda and three kassies. And that, once the investigation was complete, the police authorities filed a charge sheet against the above named respondents, except for Mukesh, for the offences under Sections 147,148, 149, 447, 341, 323, 325, 307 and 326 I.P.C.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner and the State/appellant submit that the accused-respondents were discharged for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C., at the stage of framing of charges, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur vide order dated 18.09.1997. And that the case was committed to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur for trial; whereafter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate framed the charges against the accused-respondents for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 447, 341, 323 & 325 or Section 323, 325 read with Section 149 and Section 326 IPC; upon such charges being denied by the accused-respondents, they were made to stand the trial.
3.1 Learned counsel further submit that After some point of time, upon the due procedure being followed, the matter was sent to the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur ('trial court') for the necessary trial and adjudication. 3.2 Learned counsel also submit that the learned trial court thereafter, vide the impugned judgment dated, 03.05.2001, while (Downloaded on 17/05/2022 at 08:14:51 PM) (4 of 7) [CRLR-419/2001] acquitting respondents-Jeetu Ram, Hari Ram, Hanumanram, Bhanwarlal and Rajendra for the offences under Sections 326 and 447 I.P.C; though they were convicted for the offences under Sections 148, 341, 323 and 325 I.P.C., but were granted the benefit of Probation Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, while the learned trial court acquitted the respondents Ganpat Ram, Ganesharam, Ramniwas, Karan Singh, Sukharam @ Sukhdev and Muknaram from all the charges levelled against them.
3.3 Learned counsel further submit that the learned trial court has erred in granting the benefit of probation to accused- respondent-Jeetu Ram and Hari Ram, as both of them had criminal antecedents and were not convicted for the first time, and had been granted the benefit of probation under the Act of 1958, already once before, vide order dated 15.01.1999 in Criminal Case No. 600/1996 (417/1994), and that the same was placed on record before the learned trial court.
3.4 Learned counsel also submits that the learned trial court has erred in passing the impugned judgment, since the injured witness P.W.-5 Mohan Ram deposed in clear terms that accused respondent-Mukna Ram, gave him a farsi blow on his left leg which was also corroborated by other eye - witnesses viz. P.W. 1 Chukli, P.W. 2 Parmuri, P.W. 10 Prahlad Ram, as well as by P.W. 14 Dr. Tulcha Ram who examined the injured witness. And that, Dr. Tulcha had stated that injury no. 3 in the injury report at Exhibit P-17, of the record before the learned Court below, was a grievous injury caused by the sharp - edged weapon.
3.5 Learned counsel further submits that the charge for the offence under Section 447 is clearly made out against the accused, as the incident in question occurred in the field of one Satya Narayan, where injured Mohan Ram reached while he was (Downloaded on 17/05/2022 at 08:14:51 PM) (5 of 7) [CRLR-419/2001] running to escape, but it is clearly stated by him and the other witnesses that the accused persons entered the field of Mohan Ram when he was working on the land, and ran when he caught sight of the accused, to the field of Satya Narayan. 3.6 Learned counsel also submits that whether the weapon, the farci was in the right hand or the left hand of Mukna Ram is a minor inconsistency, and cannot be taken to the standard of a gross inconsistency or contradiction, amongst the testimonies of the witnesses in the case.
3.7 Learned counsel further submits that the incident in question occurred in the evening after the closing of schools, from where the respondents no. 7 and 11 (in revision petition) could very well reach the place where the incident in question occurred, after completing their duty in their concerned schools during the day. 3.8 Learned counsel also submits that the learned trial court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in not summoning accused-Mukesh, whose name was there in the F.I.R. and against whom despite ample evidence being placed on record, and him being an active participant in the assault on Mohan Ram, was not subjected to trial before the learned trial court.
4. Heard learned counsel for both parties, and perused the record of the case.
5. This Court observes that the learned trial court in passing the impugned judgment, has recorded observations to the effect that the injury no. 3, as mentioned in the injury report generated by P.W. 14 Dr. Tulcha Ram, states that the injury so caused to the injured party, may have been caused by a sharp edged weapon, but also states that the injury could also have been caused by a stone or even by falling down.
(Downloaded on 17/05/2022 at 08:14:51 PM)
(6 of 7) [CRLR-419/2001]
6. This Court further observes that the learned trial court also recorded the finding that Deva Ram, the complainant/petitioner, and brother of Mohan Ram, the victim, was narrated the incident in question by Basti Ram, Prahlad Ram, Maga Ram and Sunda Ram and that he himself was not an eye witness to the incident in question, and that the report was lodged by him thereafter. Furthermore, P.W. 9 Sunda Ram turned hostile, and that there are inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses' with regard to respondent-Mukna Ram being armed with a fire arm and a farsa, while P.W. 10 Prahlad Ram stated that the respondent-Mukna Ram was carrying only a farsa. Thus, the inconsistency is not only limited to which weapon was in which hand, as is contended on behalf of the revisonist-petitioner, but also creates doubt as to whether a pistol was used by the said accused during the incident in question. Moreover, there is no recovery of any kind of firearm from the said accused. And that, taking into consideration the weight of both weapons, it was highly unlikely that the respondent-Mukna Ram would be able to simultaneously use both to inflict injury on the person of the injured party, Mohan Ram.
7. This Court also observes that the learned trial court also found that, basis the above discussion, the story that the respondent-Mukna Ram was carrying a pistol / firearm, is thus a fabricated story, and one without any evidentiary basis. And that, it is admitted by the injured, Mohan Ram, himself that the respondent-Mukna Ram only inflicted one injury on his person with the farsi. Moreover, given the number of persons who were arrayed as accused in the case, it was not ascertainable whether respondent-Mukna Ram was even present at the scene of the incident in question.
8. This Court further observes that the learned trial court has also relied upon the medical evidence in passing the impugned (Downloaded on 17/05/2022 at 08:14:51 PM) (7 of 7) [CRLR-419/2001] judgment, which reveals that the injuries so sustained by the injured party do not fall within the purview of Section 326 I.P.C.
9. The learned trial court has also recorded that the accused persons therein, the present respondents no. 2 to 11 (in the revision petition), are all first time offenders, and therefore, while convicting the respondents no. 2, 3, 5, 8 & 13 (in the revision petition), for the offences under Sections 148, 341, 323 and 325 I.P.C., granted them the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
10. This Court therefore observes that the learned trial court has delved deep into the evidences placed on record before it, and only after a thorough perusal of the record and looking into the overall facts and circumstances of the case, passed the impugned judgment. The Court has dealt with each of the allegations made against the accused persons therein, and none of the averments made against them were sustainable in the eye of law.
11. This Court, in light of the above made observations, finds that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant any interference..
12. Resultantly, both the present revision petition as well as the criminal appeal are dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
50-51-Skant/-
(Downloaded on 17/05/2022 at 08:14:51 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)