RAM CHANDRA versus STATE & ORS

High Court of Rajasthan

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

RAM CHANDRA v STATE & ORS - CRLR Case No. 149 of 2005 [2007] RD-RJ 2210 (25 April 2007)

(1)

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.149/2005.

(Ram Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others) 25th April , 2007

DATE OF ORDER :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS ______________________________________

Mr. V.S. Choudhary for the petitioner.

Mr. S.N. Tiwari, Dy. G.A.

BY THE COURT :

The present revision petition has been filed on behalf of the complainant against the judgmnent dated 29.01.2004 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Phalodi passed in Criminal

Appeal No.1/2004, whereby the appellate Court has partly allowed the appeal filed by the non-petitioners against the judgment dated 11.12.2003 and acquitted the accused non- petitioners for offence under Section 326/34, I.P.C. and while maintaining conviction of non-petitioners Madan Lal and Ram

Chandra under Sections 341, 323/34 and 324, I.P.C. and non- petitioner Nand Kishore under Sections 341, 323 and 324/34,

I.P.C. granted them benefit of Section 4(1) of the Probation of

Offenders Act and further ordered that the non-petitioners shall furnish bail bonds of Rs.5,000/- each alongwith one surety for maintaining peace and good behaviour for two years, otherwise

(2) they shall appear before the Court for undergoing the sentence.

It is further ordered that all the accused persons shall deposit

Rs.2,000/- each under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders

Act, out of which each injured shall be paid Rs.1,500/- as compensation.

It is argued by learned counsel for the complainant that the trial Court has committed erro while acquitting the non- petitioners for offence under Section 326, I.P.C. It is contended that there is evidence on record that the non-petitioners were liable to be convicted for offence under Section 326/34, I.P.C. and, in fact, they were armed with axes and they inflicted injuries for which they were liable to be punished for offence under Section 307, I.P.C. but the learned trial Court has convicted the accused non-petitioners for offence under Section 326/34, I.P.C. and, that too, has been set aside by the appellate

Court which is totally unwarranted.

I have perused the impugned judgment, more particularly, para 15 of the judgment of the appellate Court in which it is categorically observed by the appellate Court that as per statement of P.W.-11 Dr. C.R. Agrawal that the X-ray plate was lost in his department and he made all efforts to trace out the same. It is further observed that in Ex.-8 there is no clear opinion given with regard to injury No.3 that it is grievous in nature. Therefore, in the absence of X-ray report, which is

(3) admittedly not on record in this case, it cannot be presumed that there was grievous injury and prosecution has proved its case with regard to offence under Section 326/34, I.P.C.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any good ground for interfering with the finding of acquittal with regard to offence under Section 326/34, I.P.C.

Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed.

(Gopal Krishan Vyas) J.

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.