IMPORTANT POINT
The appellate court's decision to grant probation to convicted offenders was upheld as just and proper, despite the petitioners' claims of sufficient evidence against them.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.

1. No one appeared on behalf of the petitioners even in the second round. On the last occasion also i.e. on 15.05.2024, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioners. In these circumstances, this Court appoints Mr. Pallav Sharma, Adv. as amicus curiae in this case to represent the case of the petitioners before this Court. His remuneration shall be paid by the Rajasthan State Legal Service Authorities as per rules.

2. The matter is being finally heard and decided today.

3. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 22.09.2004, passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases and Additional Sessions Judge, Merta in Cr. Appeal No. 22/04 (Old No. 32/2002) whereby the learned appellate court partly allowed the appeal of the accused-respondent Nos. 2 to 9 and while affirming the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate, (First Class), Degana, District Nagaur, dated 11.09.2002 passed in Cr. Case No. 203/1999 to the extent of conviction for offences under Sections 148, 341, 324/149, 323/149 IPC, set aside the sentence and instead gave benefit of probation to the accused-respondent Nos. 2 to 9 under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. The appellate court by its judgment also discharged the accused-respondents No. 2 to 9 from offence under Section 325/149 IPC.

4. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up is that on 13.07.1995, complainant Shivji Ram submitted a written report at Police Station Degana to the effect that in the evening at about 7 PM, the accused respondents came armed with lathi, axe and kasia and started beating him. On shouting, complainant’s family members came to his rescue and the accused-respondents also assaulted the complainant’s family members. On the said report, Police registered a case against the accused-respondents and started investigation.

5. On completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the accused-respondents. Thereafter, the trial court framed charges. The accused-respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses in support of its case and exhibited certain documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused respondents were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, one witness namely Devkaran was examined on behalf of the accused-respondents.

7. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 11.09.2002 convicted and sentenced the accused-respondents for offences under Sections 148, 341, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149 IPC.

8. Being aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the accused-respondents preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be partly allowed vide judgment dated 22.09.2004. The learned appellate court acquitted the accused-respondents from offence under Section 325/149 IPC and while maintaining the conviction of the accused-respondents for the offences under Sections 148, 341, 323/149, 324/149 IPC, set aside the sentence as awarded by the trial court and instead gave benefit of probation to the accused-respondents. Hence, this revision petition on behalf of the petitioners against the judgment of the appellate court.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners-complainant argued that learned appellate court has committed grave error in giving benefit of probation to the accused-respondents for offences under Sections 148, 341, 323/149, 324/149 IPC, despite the fact that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The learned appellate court also committed error in discharging the accused-respondents for offence under Section 325/149 IPC. Counsel submits that there is ample evidence available on record against the accused-respondents 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 t