Bansur, District Alwar v. All residents of Village Manjra Aheer, Tehsil Bansur, District Alwar

: Mr. Brahma Prakash, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP Mr. Hemang Singh, Adv. Mr. Namo Narayan Meena, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR 20/08/2025 Order

1. The petitioner has filed this revision petition to challenge the order dated May 6, 2005, in which respondents Nos. 1 to 4 were acquitted of offences under Sections 307/34 and 341 of the IPC. Additionally, the petitioner contests the probation granted to the respondents under Sections 325/34 and 323 of the IPC.

2. The petitioner’s counsel argues that the injuries sustained by the injured party, Devendra Singh, to his head were grievous. The learned trial court, in the aforementioned order, failed to take into account the severity of the injuries and accused the respondents only under Sections 325 and 323 of the IPC. It is stated that Devendra Singh was hospitalised and underwent surgery for a [2025:RJ-JP:32819] (2 of 5) [CRLR-719/2005] fracture in his parietal bone. The counsel contends that the injuries were inflicted with murderous intent and therefore the actions of the respondents fall under Section 307 of the IPC. However, the trial court did not properly assess the medical evidence and only convicted the respondents under Sections 323 and 325 of the IPC. Furthermore, the order granting probation to respondents Nos. 1 to 4 is argued to be illegal, as the injuries caused were indeed grievous. Consequently, the petitioner seeks to have the trial court's order from May 6, 2005, set aside, and requests that respondents Nos. 1 to 4 be convicted under Section 307/34 of the IPC and that the probation order against them be revoked.

3. The counsel representing respondents Nos. 2 to 4 states that respondent No. 1 has passed away during the pendency of this revision petition, resulting in the abatement of proceedings against him.

4. The counsel for respondents Nos. 2 to 4 contends that the incident occurred suddenly and without premeditation. The learned trial court, in paragraph 21 of its judgment, correctly concluded that the petitioner’s party was the aggressor and that there was no murderous intent on the part of the respondents to cause harm. It is argued that the injuries sustained by the injured parties resulted from an exercise of the right to private defence. Additionally, the respondents filed a cross-case against the petitioner and others—Sujan Singh, Kamal Singh, Surendra, Devendra, and Ajay. The learned trial court conducted the trials of both cases simultaneously and issued its judgment on May 6, 2005, convicting the present petitioner and co-accused under [2025:RJ-JP:32819] (3 of 5) [CRLR-719/2005] Sections 323 and 325 of the IPC. The respondents also suffered injuries due to a sudden attack from the petitioner and the co- accused. The learned trial court, after evaluating evidence from both cases, concluded that the petitioner was indeed the aggressor. The trial court’s assessment was based on investigations conducted by the investigating officer, Amar Singh. The trial court also noted that the properties of the petitioner and the respondents were adjacent, and the petitioner and co-accused had obstructed the respondents' passage. It should be noted that respondent Banwari Lal also challenged the probation granted to the petitioner; however, since respondent No. 1 Banwari Lal has died during the proceedings, the petition from respondent No. 1 challenging the order issued in the cross-case has been rendered moot. Prima facie, the offence under Section 307 of the IPC is not substantiated against the respondents, as the incident unfolded spontaneously and without premeditation. Moreover, the injury sustained by Devendra Singh to the skull was a single injury in a vital area, while all other injuries were classified as simple blunt injuries. Therefore, the petitioner’s revision petition lacks merit and should be dismissed.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor has expressed support for the order rendered by the learned trial court.

6. After hearing the parties and reviewing the available materials, it is clear that both parties have filed cross-cases against one another, each alleging assault. It is also undisputed that both parties sustained injuries and that the learned trial court conducted the trials of both cases at the same time, delivering judgments on May 6, 2005. In the impugned order, the trial court [2025:RJ-JP:32819] (4 of 5) [CRLR-719/2005] elaborately discusses the genesis of the incident in paragraph 21, concluding, based on the testimony of the investigating officer Amar Singh, that the incident occurred because the petitioner and his co-accused impeded access to the respondents’ field. The court noted that the injuries sustained by Devendra Singh to his skull were categorised as grievous blunt injuries, while all other injuries were deemed simple blunt injuries.

7. It is also admitted that the petitioner and the other co- accused who were family members of the petitioner were also convicted for inflicting injuries on respondents, in cross case No.67/2004 decided on 06.05.2005 under Sections 323 and 325 of IPC. Further, the incident took place during the spur of the moment and without any premeditation. There was no murderous intention on the part of respondents Nos 1 to 4 to cause fatal injuries, the respondents Nos 1 to 4 also sustained multiple injuries to their body parts and had it been the case that the respondents caused injury with murderous intention then the respondents must have caused more harm to the injured Devendra Singh and other persons. There is no repetition of injuries.

8. In the FIR, it is alleged that the injuries caused to Devendra Singh were inflicted with the aid of ‘farsa’ which is a sharp weapon, however, the injuries were found to be caused by a blunt weapon. Thus, it is apparent that some exaggeration and embellishment have been made in the FIR.

9. The Learned trial Court after appreciating the entire evidence and after going through the record of the cross case has rightly acquitted the respondents under Section 307 of IPC and this Court [2025:RJ-JP:32819] (5 of 5) [CRLR-719/2005] do not find any infirmity or perversity in the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court. As far as grant of probation to the respondent are concerned, it is an admitted fact that there is no criminal antecedents against the respondents and in the cross case also the petitioner and the other co-accused were granted benefit of probation, therefore, after going through the entire record, this Court do not find any patent illegality in the impugned order.

10. Upshot of the above discussion, the instant revision petition stands dismissed. Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-6 (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J