Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sunil Kumar vs State And Ors (2024:Rj-Jd:45986) on 13 November, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2024:RJ-JD:45986]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 747/2017
Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Kanhaiyalal Sharma, R/o Sangariya, Police
Station Phuliya Kala, District Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan.
2. Ummaid Singh S/o Shri Bhanwar Singh, By Caste Rajput,
R/o Village Keriya, Teshil Phuliya Kala, District Bhilwara.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Arora
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment 13/11/2024 Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.03.2017, passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Shahpura, District Bhilwara in Cr. Appeal No.35/2016 whereby the learned appellate court partly allowed his appeal and granted benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioner while maintaining the judgment of conviction dated 21.06.2014 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahpura, District Bhilwara in Cr. Case No.111/2003 whereby he convicted the petitioner for offence under Sections 147, 332, 353 IPC.
Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up is that on 08.12.2002 respondent No.2 Ummaid Singh, Head Constable lodged a complaint at PS Phuliya Kala to the effect that when he along with other police officials was at the bus stand in respect of (Downloaded on 20/11/2024 at 09:20:24 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:45986] (2 of 4) [CRLR-747/2017] proceedings in FIR No.239/2002 under Section 302 IPC, at the time the present petitioner and other persons came there and started to cause damage the Police Chowki. They also pelted stones, broke furnitures and caused injury to one Pyarchand. On the said complaint, Police registered a case against the accused persons including the petitioner and commenced investigation.
On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed by the Police. Thereafter, charges of the case for offences under Section 147, 332, 353, 336/149 IPC and Section 3 of PDPP Act were framed by the trial court, which were denied by the accused persons including the petitioner and they claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses and got exhibited various documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused persons including the petitioner were recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C.
After considering the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the material available on record, the trial court vide judgment dated 21.06.2014 convicted the accused-petitioner and other for aforesaid offences but at the same time, gave benefit of Section 4(1) of Probation of Offenders Act.
Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.06.2014, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be partly allowed vide judgment dated 16.03.2017 and the appellate court while maintaining the judgment of the trial court, granted benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Hence, this revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court have committed grave (Downloaded on 20/11/2024 at 09:20:24 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:45986] (3 of 4) [CRLR-747/2017] illegality in convicting the petitioner for offence under Sections 147, 332, 353 IPC. Counsel submits that the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the FIR and he was implicated with the ulterior motive. Counsel further submits that all the witnesses in this case are interested witnesses being Police personnel and hence, the finding of guilt arrived at by the courts below on the basis of evidence of interested witnesses cannot be upheld as the same creates doubts in the prosecution case. Further, there are major contradictions, omissions and improvements in the statements of the witnesses and thus the prosecution has completely failed to prove its case. Thus, the conviction of the petitioner cannot be said to be justified. Hence, the impugned judgments passed by the courts below may be quashed and set aside.
Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that learned courts below have rightly convicted the accused-petitioner for aforesaid offences. Thus, the impugned judgments do not warrant any interference.
I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned judgments of the courts below.
On perusal of the impugned judgments, it appears that the learned courts below while passing the impugned judgments have 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 (Downloaded on 20/11/2024 at 09:20:24 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:45986] (4 of 4) [CRLR-747/2017] against the petitioner before the courts below and thus the learned courts below have rightly convicted the accused-petitioner for the aforesaid and extended the benefit of Probation under Section 12 of the Act. The judgments passed by the courts below are detailed and reasoned order. Thus, this Court does not find any illegality and perversity in the impugned judgments.
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 judgments under challenge.
Accordingly, the revision petition is hereby dismissed. Record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 31-MS/-
(Downloaded on 20/11/2024 at 09:20:24 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)