HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 537/2006

Mangi Lal son of Shri Ram Gopal, aged 40 years, resident of

Kherli Phatak, Kota (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner

Versus

1- State of Rajasthan through P.P.

.... NON-PETITIONER

2. Ram Prasad S/o Kanhaiya Lal,

3. Madan Lal S/o Mangi Lal,

4. Parmanand S/o Ram Kishan,

5. Mangi Lal S/o Babu Lal, 6- Mohan Lal S/o Babu Lal,

7 Satya Narayan S/o Madan Lal

8. Mukesh Kumar S/o Madan Lal

9. Babu Lal S/o Mangla,

All are resident of Village Khopal, P.S. Chhabra, District Baran.

----Accused Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aditya Raj for Mr. Praveen

Balwada

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Gupta-Dy.GA cum PP

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

08/10/2025

1. By way of filing this revision petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned judgment dated 24.03.2006 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Chabra, District Baran by which the accused respondents have been acquitted from the charges under Sections 341, 148, 307 and 307 read with

149 of IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 15.11.2004, the complainant-Mangi Lal lodged a written report with the Police Station, Chabra alleging therein that on 15.11.2004 he along with

PW-2 Babu Lal was going to Village Pipaliya on a motorcycle. Suddenly, a buffalo came in front of the motor-cycle, due to which the bike slowed down and at that moment, the accused respondent No.5- Mangi Lal started beating the complainant on his head and when he tried to run away, the other accused respondents namely Ram Prasad, Madan Lal, Satya Naryan, Mukesh, Parmanand, Mohan Lal and Babu Lal came there with Lathi and Gandasi in their hands and started beating the complainant and PW2- Babu Lal. In the aforesaid incident both of them have sustained injuries.

3. Upon this report, crime No. 283/2004 was registered for the above mentioned offences and after investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the accused respondents and charges were framed against them for the above stated offences which they denied and claimed trial.

4. During the course of trial, the statements of as many as 18 witnesses were exhibited. Thereafter the statement of accused respondent No. 3 was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied his participation in the incident and submitted that he has falsely been booked but in his defence no evidence was produced. After completion of trial, the learned Trial Judge vide impugned judgment dated 24.03.2006 acquitted all the accused respondents from the aforesaid offences.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the instant criminal revision petition.

6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that on the basis of the evidence available on record and from the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the guilt of each and every accused has been established and proved beyond the reasonable doubt but inspite of the above, the evidence of the witnesses was not rightly appreciated and the same was misread and the benefit of doubt has been extended to the accused respondents. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the judgment of acquittal passed in favour of the accused respondents is not sustainable and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.

7. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the evidence of the prosecution and the judgment passed by the Court below.

8. Perusal of the impugned judgment indicates that during the course of trial, statements of several independent witnesses namely PW6- Ram Prasad, PW7-Dhanraj, PW8-Ram Pratap, PW9- Bhagwati Prasad, PW10-Gobarilal, PW11- Jankilal, PW12- Dr. Rajeev Soni, PW13- Nandkishore and PW14- Ganga Bishan were recorded and one of the independent recovery witnesses namely PW13-Nandkishore has not supported the version of prosecution and has been declared as hostile.

9. Perusal of the impugned judgment further indicates that the Court below while passing the i