State of Rajasthan through P.P v. Connected

: Mr. Anurag Sharma with Mr. Anoop Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Tiwari, PP Mr. Rinesh Kumar Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR JUDGMENT RESERVED ON :: 16/04/2025 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :: /2025

1. The petitioners were convicted for the offence under Sections 148, 323/149, 324, 324/149, 326 and 326/149 of Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 22.8.2001 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hindaun City in Criminal Case No.212/1994 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as under:- [2025:RJ-JP:20241] (2 of 5) [CRLR-1178/2006] Under Section 148 of IPC :- One year’s rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo one month additional rigorous imprisonment Under Section 323/149 of IPC :- Three months rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine, 15 days additional rigorous imprisonment Under Section 324, 324/149 of IPC :- one year’s rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, one month’s additional rigorous imprisonment Under Section 326, 326/149 of IPC :- Three year’s rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, two months additional rigorous imprisonment All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioners preferred appeal before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindaun City in Criminal Appeal No.24/2001, which was dismissed on 22.9.2006.

3. Aggrieved with both the judgments, the petitioners have filed the present revision petitions.

4. Since in both these revision petitions similar facts are involved and both relate to same incident, hence they are being decided by this single order.

5. The facts giving rise to the present case are that on

13.6.1992, at about 10.30 P.M., when complainant Mangilal was closing his shop, all accused petitioners came armed with sword, Axe, Dharia and sticks and assaulted complainant and his three sons and thereby caused several injuries to them. [2025:RJ-JP:20241] (3 of 5) [CRLR-1178/2006]

6. On the basis of aforesaid report, police registered a case and after due investigation charge-sheet was filed before the competent court. The concerned court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hindaun City after considering the evidence adduced by the parties convicted and sentenced the petitioners as mentioned above and the appeal filed by the petitioners was also dismissed by learned appellate court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hindaun City, hence these petitions.

7. Heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. During pendency of this revision petition, the parties have settled their dispute amiably and filed a compromise deed which has been verified by the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed that considering the compromise between the parties for compoundable offences, petitioners may be acquitted and for rest of the non compoundable offence, a lenient view may be taken for that learned counsel for the petitioners do not challenge conviction of the petitioners but confined his arguments qua the sentence only. Learned counsel for the petitioners however makes a limited prayer that the petitioner Virendra has remained in judicial custody for three months 15 days and Sushil for one month 20 days and they have been suffering the agony of imprisonment therefore, it has been submitted that the sentence awarded to the petitioners Virendra and Sushil may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. He further submits that in view of the amicable settlement of the dispute, petitioner Bintu @ Rishi may [2025:RJ-JP:20241] (4 of 5) [CRLR-1178/2006] be granted benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

9. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions and stated that in the backdrop of the overall facts and circumstances of the case and well reasoned order passed by both the courts below, the petitioners are not entitled for any indulgence by this Court.

10. I have given my earnest consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and scanned the matter carefully.

11. On perusal of the judgments of both the courts below, this Court is of the considered view that the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record while holding the petitioners guilty of the offences. The appellate court has rightly dismissed the appeal. Therefore, there is no illegality or perversity in the findings given by both the courts below which warrants any interference by this Court by invoking the revisional jurisdiction.

12. Even otherwise, during pendency of these revisions, a compromise has been entered between the parties therefore the petitioners are liable to be acquitted under Sections 323/149, 324 and 324/149 IPC.

13. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the petitioners are hereby acquitted of the offence under Sections 323/149, 324 and 324/149 IPC on the basis of compromise arrived between the parties. As regards offence under Sections 148, 326 and 326/149 IPC, considering the amicable settlement, protracted trial and the [2025:RJ-JP:20241] (5 of 5) [CRLR-1178/2006] period of custody, this Court feels that ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to the petitioners Virendra and Sushil is reduced to the period already undergone by them.

14. As regards petitioner Bintu @ Rishi, considering the amicable settlement between the parties, protracted trial and no criminal antecedent exists against him, this Court direct that he shall be released on probation under Section 4 of the Act of 1958 upon his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court with further undertaking that he shall maintains peace and good behavior for a period of two years and shall not repeat the offence.

15. Consequently, both the revision petitions are partly allowed and while maintaining the conviction as stated above, the petitioners Virendra and Sushil are sentenced to the period already undergone by them and petitioner Bintu @ Rishi is granted benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Act of 1958 as mentioned above. The petitioners are on bail, they need not surrender. Their bail bonds stands discharged accordingly.

16. Both the revision petitions are disposed of.

17. All pending applications stands disposed of. Record of the courts below be sent back forthwith. BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI 77/141-142 (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J