1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. RADHAKRISHAN AND OTHERS SB Criminal Appeal No. 783 of 2007 under Section 378 (i) & (iii) Cr.P.C. against the order dated April 22, 2006 of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2 Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No. 105/95(191/01, 19/02) whereby the accused respondent Kumari Neena was acquitted for offence under sections 307, 307/34,365, 365/34, 326, 326/34, 325/34, 324/34, 323/34 IPC, accused respondents Radhakrishan, Om Prakash @ Prakash and Smt. Supyar for offence under sections 307, 307/34,365, 365/34, 326, 326/34, 325, 325/34, 324, 324/34,323, 323/34 IPC and accused respondents Smt. Supyar and Om Prakash for offence under sections 324 and accused respondent Radhakrishan for offence under sections 325, 323 IPC and convicted accused respondent Smt. Supyar for offence under Sections 323, 325 IPC, accused respondent Om Prakash for offence under section 325 and accused Radha Krishan for offence under section 324 IPC The accused respondents Smt. Supyar, Om Prakash and Radha Krishna were released under section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act on furnishing personal bond in the amount of Rs. 3,000/- for keeping peace and be of good behaviour for three years and the accused respondent Om Prakash was directed to pay compensation in the amount of Rs. 3,000/- and accused respondent Smt. Supyar was directed to pay compensation in the amount of Rs. 3,000/- and accused respondent Radha Krishan was directed to pay compensation in the amount of Rs. 2,000/- under section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act. On depositing compensation Rs. 8,000/-, the same was payable to Smt. Santosh. 2 Date of Order : April 30, 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Piyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor for the appellant State of Rajasthan. Mr. Karamveer and Mr. Sanjay Mahla for the accused respondents. BY THE COURT : State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the order dated April 22, 2006 of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2 Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No. 105/95 (191/01, 19/02) whereby the accused respondent Kumari Neena was acquitted for offence under sections 307, 307/34,365, 365/34, 326, 326/34, 325/34, 324/34, 323/34 IPC, accused respondents Radhakrishan, Om Prakash @ Prakash and Smt. Supyar for offence under sections 307, 307/34,365, 365/34, 326, 326/34, 325, 325/34, 324, 324/34,323, 323/34 IPC and accused respondents Smt. Supyar and Om Prakash for offence under sections 324 and accused respondent Radhakrishan for offence under sections 325, and 323 IPC and convicted accused respondent Smt. Supyar for offence under Sections 323, 325 IPC, accused respondent Om Prakash for offence under section 325 and accused Radha Krishan for offence under section 3 324 IPC. The accused respondents Smt. Supyar, Om Prakash and Radha Krishna were released under section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act on furnishing personal bond in the amount of Rs. 3,000/- each for keeping peace and be of good behaviour for three years and the accused respondent Om Prakash was directed to pay compensation in the amount of Rs. 3,000/- and accused respondent Smt. Supyar was directed to pay compensation in the amount of Rs. 3,000/- and accused respondent Radha Krishan was directed to pay compensation in the amount of Rs. 2,000/- under section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act in the trial court. On depositing compensation Rs. 8,000/-, the same was payable to Smt. Santosh. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on Feb. 5, 2001 at about 8.00 a.m. When Mahendra Singh brother of the informant Suresh Kumar was going to Jhunjhunu the accused respondents who were having Gandasi and other deadly weapons with them gave beating to him. When Savitri his wife, Brother's wife Santosh and his niece Shashibala and his mother Phoolidevi 4 came for saving Mahendra Singh, the accused respondents also gave beating to them by deadly weapons. Mahendra Singh, Santosh, Savitri, and Phooli Devi got admitted in the hospital for treatment. The Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track No.2 Jhunjhunu on November 11, 2002 framed charge for the offence under sections 307, 307/34,365, 365/34, 326, 326/34, 325, 325/34, 324, 324/34,323, 323/34 IPC against the accused respondents. The accused respondents denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case produced 15 witnesses and exhibited 44 documents. The statements of accused respondents under section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. In defence accused respondents got exhibited 15 documents. The trial court formulated 6 points for consideration. After hearing both the sides the trial court vide judgment dated April 22, 2006 acquitted and convicted the accused respondents as mentioned above and further given the benefit of Probation of 5 Offenders Act. Against this order of acquittal the State preferred leave to appeal and after leave was granted the same was registered as appeal and hence this appeal. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that the trial court has not appreciated the prosecution witnesses in a proper manner. The prosecution witnesses have been able to prove the case against the accused respondents beyond reasonable doubt but the trial court did not consider it and only on the basis of the rulings cited by the accused respondents gave them benefit of doubt. The doctor who examined the injured in clear terms stated that the injury of Mahendra on head was grievous in nature. Thus the accused respondents are liable to be convicted for this offence for causing injury to Mahendra Singh injured. Thus the judgment of the trial court should be set aside and the accused respondents should be convicted for the 6 offence charged against them. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Karmveer and Mr. Sanjay Mahla, learned counsel appearing for the accused respondents, contended that the trial court has considered each and every aspect of the case and nothing remains more to be considered by this court in appeal. The trial court rightly given the benefit of doubt looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. For the injuries caused to the injured, the trial court convicted the accused respondents and further given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act under Section 4(1) and section 5 of the Act. The accused respondents have been directed to deposit the compensation amount. The amount of compensation is also not inadequate. Thus the order of the trial court does not call for any interference. The injury caused by Mahendra Singh was sharp in nature and the weapon used by the accused respondent was not sharp and hence the trial court given the benefit of doubt to the accused respondents and this order of the trial court does not call for any interference by this court 7 in appeal. 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. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the trial court. The trial court given the benefit of sections 4(1) and 5 of the Probation of offenders Act to the accused respondents and this order does not call for any interference in appeal in the facts and circumstances of the case. The court's attention was drawn on the 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 appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan is dismissed after 8 confirming the judgment dated April 22, 2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2 Jhunjhunu. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/