1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT SITA RAM VS. BHANWAR SINGH AND ANR. SB Criminal Revision Pet. No. 7 of 2000 under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated November 27, 1999 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Malpura District Tonk, in Sessions Case No. 1 of 1999 whereby he acquitted the accused- non-petitioners for the offences under sections 307, 307/34 and 341 IPC and for other offences under sections 325, 323 and 325/34 IPC granted probation under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Date of Order : March 20, 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Nitin Jain, for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Kumar Jain for Mr. N.C.Chaudhary, for the non- petitioners. Mr. Pradeep Srimal, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT : This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Sita Ram, against the order dated November 27, 1999 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Malpura District Tonk, in Sessions Case No. 1 of 1999 whereby he acquitted the accused- non-petitioners for the offences under sections 307, 307/34 and 341 IPC and for other offences under sections 325, 323 and 325/34 IPC granted probation under section 4 2 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on March 25, 1997 a parcha bayan of injured Sita Ram, petitioner, was recorded by Police Head Constable Bhagwan Singh, Police Chowki Mor and on that basis an FIR No. 75 of1997 was registered under sections 341, 323/34 IPC. On the basis of X-ray report as well as opinion of Doctor, offence under section 307 IPC was added. In the parcha bayan it was stated by the petitioner that he and his brother Gopal were present in Hotel of Durga lal and were sitting there at that time accused Bhanwar Singh came from village and gave a lathi blow on his back. He shouted and thereafter both sons of Bhanwar Singh namely Bharat Singh and Dasrath Singh also gave beating. Dasrath Singh snatched hair of the injured and Bharat Singh gave a blow by Gupti. After due investigation challan was filed against the accused non- petitioners for the offences under 3 sections 307, 341 and 323/34 IPC. The case was committed for trial. The trial court framed the charge against the accused non-petitioners for the offences under sections 307 or 307/34, 325 or 325/149, 323 or 323/34 and 341 IPC. The accused non-petitioners denied the charges and claimed to be tried. In support of its case the prosecution examined 13 witnesses. Statement of accused non- petitioners under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and in defence they produced one Bhajranga as DW.1. After hearing both the parties the trial court acquitted all the accused non-petitioners from offences under sections 307, 307/34 and 341 IPC. and for other offences the conviction was recorded but instead of awarding sentence the trial court granted benefit of probation under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Hence this revision petition was preferred against the judgment dated November 27, 1999passed by the trial court. 4 3. Mr. Nitin Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the acquittal of the accused non-petitioners from the offences under sections 307, 307/34 and 341 IPC is ex-facie illegal and contrary to law and facts both. According to him injury report of Sita Ram was placed on record as Exhibit P.2 wherein he had sustained 16 injuries. The X-ray plates of Sita Ram were also placed on record as Ex. P.11 and Ex. P.12. As per X-ray plate there was a fracture of tampo parietal bone towards right side. Opinion of Doctor was also placed on record as Ex. P.22. As per his opinion the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. There was no reason to disbelieve the opinion of doctor which was placed on record and there was no reason for the trial court to acquit the accused non-petitioners from the offences under sections 307, 307/34 IPC. The reasonings recorded by the trial court 5 for acquittal from the offences under section 34 IPC is also bad in law and deserves to be set aside. From the statements of PW.1 and PW.2 injured witnesses, injury reports, x-ray reports, medical report, the ingredients of offences under section 307, 307/34 IPC were fully made and in these circumstances the accused non-petitioners were liable to convicted under section 307, 307/34 IPC. The learned counsel argued that in view of the number of injuries and nature of injuries sustained by the injured persons, it was not a fit case for grant of probation under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act of 1958. In support of his case he has drawn attention of this Court towards the case of Keshar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (Western Law Cases ( Raj.) 2000 page 394 and Lalaram vs. Idrish and others Western Lal Cases (Raj.) 1998 page 670. 4. Mr. Amit Kumar Jain, the learned 6 counsel for the accused respondents and Mr. Pradeep Srimal, the learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and stated that the trial court after considering all the evidence, documents and record passed the order of acquittal and rightly granted the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the accused non-petitioners. Dr. Anil Meena, who was examined as PW.10, has not stated in his statement about the injury report that the same was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In the FIR, it was written that injured Sitaram was unconsious for some time, but in his statement PW.1 Sitaram and in his statement PW.2 Ramgopal, who is injured witness, have not stated that Sitaram was unconsious for some time. In para No.14 of the judgment of the trial court the trial court observed that PW.1 and PW.2 in their statements stated that Bharat Singh gave Gupti blow on the abdomen of PW.1, but no 7 recovery of Gupti was made, in such circumstances the trial court acquitted the accused respondents from the charge of offence under sections 307 and 307/34 IPC to the accused respondents. PW.11 Dr. Rajesh Bohra in his statement only admitted about the linear fracture and this injury is not sufficient to cause death. PW.3, who is star witness of the prosecution case was declared hostile. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the trial court, which is based on proper reasonings. The trial court rightly granted the probation as there was no adverse report against the accused non-petitioners. The order of the trial court is thus just and proper. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record. The judgment passed by the trial court is perfectly according to law and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same. The court's attention was drawn on the 8 judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umrao Vs. State of Harayana & Ors. SC 2006 Vol.10 Page 136 in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court has observed in para 26 that “it is now well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below.” 6. For these reasons the order passed by the trial court does not call for any interference in revisional jurisdiction and the revision petition stands dismissed. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/