1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT MADHO AND ANR. VS. STATE OF RAJ. SB Criminal Revision Pet. No. 664 of 1998 under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated June 22, 1998 of Special Judge, SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities ) Cases Ajmer Disttt. Ajmer in Appeal No. 4 of 1998, whereby the accused petitioners were directed to deposit 2,000/- each upto July 22, 1998 and were further given the benefit of section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act and submit bail bond in the amount of Rs. 5,000/- for keeping peace and be of good behaviour for a period of three years against the judgment dated 30.10.1996 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Nasirabad whereby the accused petitioner Kishna was convicted for the offences under sections 325, 324/34, 323, 341 and 447 IPC and accused petitioner Madho was convicted for the offence under sections 325/34, 324/34, 323, 341 and 447 IPC. Date of Order : April 9, 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Reashm Bhargava, for the petitioners. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Shrimal, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT : This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated June 22, 1998 of Special Judge, SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities ) Cases Ajmer Disttt. 2 Ajmer in Appeal No. 4 of 1998, whereby the accused petitioners were directed to deposit 2,000/- each upto July 22, 1998 and were further given the benefit of section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act and submit bail bond in the amount of Rs. 5,000/- for keeping peace and be of good behaviour for a period of three years against the judgment dated 30.10.1996 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Nasirabad whereby the accused petitioner Kishna was convicted for the offence under sections 325, 324/34, 323, 341 and 447 IPC and accused petitioner Madho was convicted for the offence under sections 325/34, 324/34, 323, 341 and 447 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on July 26, 1991 at 11 a.m. an FIR was lodged by Pratap at Police Station Nasirabad Sadar against the accused petitioners Madho and Kishana and accused Chandra and Mewa. The police registered case under Sections 447, 325, 324, 323/34 and 341 IPC. During investigation Chandra accused died. After completion of the investigation the police filed charge 3 sheet and the trial court framed charge against the accused petitioners under sections 447, 323,341, 324 and 325 read with section 34 IPC on August 12, 1993. The statements of 8 prosecution witnesses were recorded and and six documents were exhibited. The statements of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. After hearing both the parties, the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated above. Against the conviction and sentence the accused petitioners filed appeal before the Sessions Judge Ajmer which was transferred to the Special Judge, SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Ajmer. The appellate court after hearing arguments affirmed the order of conviction but directed the accused petitioners to deposit fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and they were released under section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Against this order of the appellate court, present revision petition has been filed. 4 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the court below without going through the entire record and evidence wrongly convicted the accused petitioners and the appellate court affirmed the order of conviction but granted the benefit of section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act and further directed the accused petitioners to deposit fine of Rs. 2,000 each. This order of the appellate court is not correct. The accused party and the complainant party are family members and compromise was also filed between them before the trial court. The parties have not filed any such compromise before this court. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and stated that the court below after considering all the evidence, documents and record passed the order of conviction and the appellate court affirmed the order 5 of conviction but granted benefit of section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act and further directed for depositing Rs. 2000 each as fine. This order of the appellate court is just and proper. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the courts below. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record. The judgment passed by the court below is perfectly according to law and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same. 6. Thus the orders passed by the courts below do not call for any interference in revisional jurisdiction and the revision petition stands dismissed. As the main petition has been disposed the stay application also stands disposed. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/