[2025:RJ-JD:33162]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 922/2012 Raj Mal S/o Shri Bheem Ji, Aged about 32 years, Resident of Village Bori, Police Station Peepalkhunth, District Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.

----Appellant Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor

2. Gautam S/o Shri Bhanji Meena, 3. Narain S/o Shri Bhanji Meena, 4. Mangala S/o Shri Bhanji Meena, 5. Panchu @ Panchu Ram S/o Shri Mangala Meena, 6. Gattu S/o Shri Mangala Meena, 7. Prakash S/o Shri Mangala Meena, All are residents of Village Bori, Police Station Peepalkunth, District Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.

----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shambhoo Singh Rathore Mr. Hitendra Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG Mr. K.S. Kumpawat, AAAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Order

28/07/2025

1. Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant- complainant under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. and Section 11 of Probation Offenders Act against judgment dated 23.07.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity Cases), Pratapgarh in Sessions Case No.19/2010 whereby, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused-respondents No.2 to 7 from offence under Section 308/149 of IPC and while convicting them for offences under Sections 147, 341, 323/149, 324/149 & 325/149 of IPC, learned trial court extended them the benefit of probation under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. The trial court also imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- upon each of Respondents No. 2 to 7, amounting to a total of Rs.30,000/-, pursuant to Section 5(b) of the Act. The said fine was directed to be disbursed as compensation in the following manner: Rs.10,000/- to the injured Keshrimal, Rs.7,000/- to the injured Bharat Singh, Rs.4,000/- to the injured Rajmal and Rs.3,000/- to the injured Reena @ Ratan.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up is that on 02.03.2010, complainant Raj submitted a written report to the Police while he was admitted at Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Banswara to the effect that when he was returning to his house along with his brothers Bharat Singh, Keshrimal and his niece Reena @ Ratan, the accused-respondent Nos.2-7 came armed with lathis, swords & stones and assaulted them. On the said report, Police registered a case against the accused respondents and started investigation.

3. On completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the accused respondent Nos.2 to 7. Thereafter, the trial court framed charges for offences under Sections 147, 341, 323, 324/149, 325/149, 148 & 308/149 of IPC. The accused respondent Nos.2 to 7 pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited certain documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused respondents were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.

5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 23.07.2012 acquitted the accused-

respondent Nos.2 to 7 from offence under Section 308/149 IPC and while convicting them for offences under Sections 147, 341, 323/149, 324/149 & 325/149 of IPC, extended the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

Hence, this appeal on behalf of the complainant/appellant.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant submits that the learned trial court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused-respondents from offence under Section 308/149 of IPC and in giving benefit of probation for offences under Sections 147, 341, 323, 323/149, 324, 324/149 & 325/149 of IPC despite the fact that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Counsel submits that there is ample evidence available on record against the accused-respondents for commission of offence punishable under Section 308/149 of IPC. Yet, the trial court did not consider these aspects of the matter and acquitted the accused respondents fr