State of Rajasthan through P.P v. For

: Sriram Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Shekhawat with Mr. Shubham Sain, AAAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR JUDGMENT RESERVED ON :: 14/05/2025 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :: 23/05/2025

1. The petitioners have preferred this revision petition against the judgment dated 14.9.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, No.2, Jaipur District Jaipur in Criminal Case No.158/2001 whereby they have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Roop Narayan Under Section 326 of IPC Three years simple Imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo one months simple imprisonment. Under Section 323 IPC Six months simple Imprisonment Under Section 324/34 One year imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. [2025:RJ-JP:20806] (2 of 5) [CRLR-796/2006] Under Section 447 of IPC fine of Rs. 500/- in default whereof to undergo five days simple imprisonment Satya Narayan Under Section 326/34 of IPC Three years simple Imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo one month’s simple imprisonment. Under Section 324/34 IPC One years simple Imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. Under Section 323/34 of IPC:- six months simple imprisonment Under Section 447 of IPC:- fine of Rs. 500/- in default whereof to undergo five days simple imprisonment Ram Charan @ Chiranji Under Section 326/34 of IPC Three years simple Imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.2000/- in default whereof to undergo five days simple imprisonment Under Section 324/34 IPC One years simple Imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.1000/- in default whereof to undergo five days simple imprisonment Under Section 323 of IPC:- six months simple imprisonment Under Section 447 of IPC:- fine of Rs. 500/- in default whereof to undergo five days simple imprisonment All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioners preferred an appeal before learned Sessions Judge, [2025:RJ-JP:20806] (3 of 5) [CRLR-796/2006] Jaipur District, Jaipur in Criminal Appeal No.79/2005, which was partly allowed on 14.7.2006 and petitioner Roop Narayan was acquitted of the offence under Sections 326, 324/34 and other petitioners for offence under Section 326/34 and 324/34 but convicted under Section 325/34 IPC.

3. Aggrieved with both the judgments, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

4. The brief facts giving rise to this case are that on July, 13 th 1999 when his brother Radhamohan’s children were returning home from school, Bajya’s son and daughter beat them up on the way. On this Bajya and his son Satyarayan, Roopnaryan and Ramcharan came there armed with sticks, gandasas and iron rods and started fighting with them. Roopnarayan hit Raahdamohan on the head with a gandasa. When the complainant came to the rescue, Roopnarayan hit him. Ramcharan hit his mother with a gandasa and Roopnaran hit Radhamohan on hand with gandasa. Bajya also hit him with a stick. Satyanarain also hit with lathis to him and Radhamohan and his their mother.

5. After due investigation charge-sheet was filed against petitioners Satya Narayan, Roop Naryan and Ram Charan @ Chiranji before the competent court. The concerned court of Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jaipur District, Jaipur after considering the evidence adduced by the parties convicted and sentenced the petitioner as mentioned above and the appeal filed by the petitioners was also partly allowed by learned appellate court of learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur hence this revision petition. [2025:RJ-JP:20806] (4 of 5) [CRLR-796/2006]

6. During the pendency of this revision petition, petitioner No. 1 Satya Narayan and petitioner No.2 Roop Narayan have died, therefore, on 30.4.2025 proceedings against them were dropped.

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

8. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not challenge the conviction of the petitioner and confined his arguments qua the quantum of sentence only. Learned counsel for the petitioner however makes a limited prayer that the petitioner has remained in custody for 25 days, therefore, he may be granted benefit of probation under 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 petitioner is 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 petitioner guilty of offence and the appellate court has rightly partially allowed the appeal as mentioned above. Therefore, there is no illegality or perversity in the findings given by both the courts [2025:RJ-JP:20806] (5 of 5) [CRLR-796/2006] below which warrants any interference by this Court by invoking the revisional jurisdiction.

12. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the judgments of conviction and has restricted his arguments qua the quantum of sentence only. The conviction of petitioner is therefore affirmed.

13. In the light of limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, the present petition is partly allowed while maintaining the conviction of the present petitioner Ram Charan @ Chiranji for the offences under Sections 323, 325/34 and 447 IPC as recorded by the learned courts below in the impugned judgments, this Court interferes only with the sentence part of the said judgments and direct that the petitioner 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. The petitioner is on bail, he need not surrender. His bail bonds stands discharged accordingly.

14. All pending applications stands disposed of. Record of the courts below be sent back forthwith. BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI 77/8 (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J