The High Court dismissed a criminal appeal against conviction under the IPC. The bench upheld the trial court's judgment of guilty verdict and the grant of probation, finding the order well-reasoned and based on evidence. The stay application was also disposed of.
The criminal appeal was dismissed; the stay application stood disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 189/2008
----Appellant Versus
State of Rajasthan ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. NL Joshi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Javed Gauri, Dy GA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS
Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT 27/01/2023
The appellants have preferred the present cr. appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 30.1.2008 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Hanumangarh, Headquarter Nohar in Sessions Case No.14/2007 (28/2003) whereby the learned trial court held the appellants guilty under Sections 147, 323 and 186 of the IPC, but instead of directing them to serve sentence, granted the benefit of
(2 of 3)
[CRLA-189/2008]
probation and also directed them to pay a sum of Rs.200/- each to the injured.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the FIR lodged against the appellants is the counter blast to the earlier FIR lodged by the appellants and no such occurrence had taken place. It is submitted that in fact, the complainant party was the aggressor, who made an attempt to dispossess the appellants from their lawful possession. Thus, there was no evidence of constituting unlawful assembly. Learned counsel further submits that learned trial court committed manifest illegality while holding the appellants guilty under Section 186 of the IPC whereas there is no iota of evidence or any document on record regarding causing obstacle in discharging the official duty or official work by a public servant. Hence, it is submitted that the appeal may be allowed and the impugned order may be quashed and set aside.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is just and proper and hence, there is no need to interfere with the impugned order.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record.
Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the learned trial court has rightly held the appellants guilty for the offences under Sections 147, 323 and 186 of the IPC and the impugned order granting
(3 of 3)
[CRLA-189/2008]
benefit of probation and directing the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.200/- each to the injured, is justified.
The order impugned is well reasoned and based on evidence available on record. Therefore, no interference is called for.
Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is hereby dismissed. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J
146-CPGoyal/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's conviction and probation order.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Brij Lal son of Bhura Ram and others
State of Rajasthan
Madan Gopal Vyas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
