The court upheld previous findings of acquittal for lack of intent under IPC Section 307, emphasizing the familial context and absence of premeditation.

Order

ORDER RESERVED ON ::: 21/05/2025 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON ::: 17/06/2025 BY THE COURT:-

1. These two matters—Criminal Revision No.672/2007 and Criminal Appeal No.1086/2006—have been filed against the judgment dated 04.12.2006, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track No.1, Jodhpur, in Sessions Case No.63/2006. By the said judgment, the learned Trial Court convicted the accused persons for lesser offences and extended to them the benefit of probation instead of imposing immediate custodial sentences.

2. The revision petition (Criminal Revision No.672/2007) has been filed by the complainant/victim, challenging the acquittal of the accused from the charge under Section 307 IPC and also aggrieved by the extension of benefit of probation. In Criminal Appeal No.1086/2006, the accused-appellants have challenged the finding of guilt and sought complete acquittal.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment under challenge as well as the record of the case.

3.1. The factual background of the case reveals that an FIR, Exhibit P-1, was lodged on 29.12.2005 by PW-2 Sukhram, son of the victim petitioner Gumana Ram, alleging that the accused- respondents—who are the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.1086/2006—assaulted the victim. After due investigation, the accused were charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 323 , 341, 325, 307, 447 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions where the learned Trial Court framed charges accordingly.

3.2. During the trial, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses and produced sixteen documents in evidence. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they denied the allegations. In defence, the accused produced two witnesses, DW-1 Sugnaram and DW-2 Gobarram.

3.3. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned Trial Court concluded that an incident did indeed occur and that the victim sustained injuries. However, the Trial Court found that the requisite intent to kill, which is essential for an offence under Section 307 IPC, was absent. The incident was held to be a sudden outburst arising from a familial dispute between siblings owning adjacent agricultural lands. The Court also noted that there was no premeditation or animosity of a degree that would suggest an intention to kill. Accordingly, the accused were acquitted of the charge under Section 307 IPC and were instead convicted under Sections 341 , 323, 325, and 447 IPC.

4. Having carefully examined the findings of the Trial Court, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the acquittal under Section 307 IPC. The Trial Court has meticulously considered the nature of the injuries, number of injuries, kind of weapon used, the part of the body chosen for inflicting injury to the victim and, most importantly, the absence of any prior motive, pre-concert or pre- planned attack. Exhibit P-16 shows only a simple fracture. In the circumstances, the acquittal of the accused from the charge under Section 307 IPC is a well-reasoned and justified conclusion, warranting no interference by this Court.

5. On the question of sentence, it is pertinent to note that the accused have no previous criminal antecedents. Considering the suddenness of the incident, the familial relationship between the parties, the relatively minor nature of the injuries, and the applicability of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, the learned Trial Court rightly adopted a reformative approach.

The benefit of probation was extended, and compensation was also awarded to the victim.

6. This Court does not find any perversity, illegality, or material irregularity in the findings recorded by