Ravi Kumar @ Ravi And Others vs State Of Rajasthan

Farjand Ali, J

The instant applications have been filed under Section 389 of CrPC by the appellants seeking stay of conviction made by Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases, Jaisalmer in Sessions Case No. 191/2017 vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.06.2022 for the offences under Sections 341, 323 and in alternate 323/34 of the IPC.

Though the matter has come up upon filing of applications seeking stay of conviction preferred by the appellants under Section 389 of CrPC but the appeal has been finally heard and decided by this judgment with the consent of learned counsel for the appellants and the learned AGA.

The instant appeals have been filed by the applicant-appellants under Section 374 of CrPC against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.06.2022 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases, Jaisalmer in Sessions Case No. 191/2017 whereby the accused-appellants were convicted for the offences under Sections 341, 323 and in alternate 323/34 of the IPC and were given the benefit of probation for a period of one year according to Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

The concise facts of the case are that when the complainant was taking bookings for the bus travelling to Falsund from Pokhran, the appellants approached him and asked him to load a gas tank onto the bus to which he replied that the owner of the bus had asked not to load gas tank onto the bus with the passengers. Upon his refusal to load the gas tank, the appellants started spewing out lewd and foul words directed at him and beat him up badly. The complainant sustained injuries and his face turned bloody as his nose was broken. He went to the police station right after the incident and upon the information given by him, the police arrested the appellants on the same day of the incident. An FIR came to be filed against the appellants and after usual investigation, they were charge-sheeted. Then, the trial court framed charges against them under Sections 341, 323 and in alternate 323/34 of IPC as well as under Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 2(va) of the SC/ST Act to which they pleaded not guilty and requested trial.

The statements of as many as nine witnesses were recorded during examination in the trial and eight documents were tendered into evidence by the prosecution. Thereafter, when explanation was sought from the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., they refuted the allegations levelled against them and stated that the evidence produced by the prosecution was false, however, they did not submit anything as part of the defense evidence. It was specifically stated by the appellants that they were innocent and they had been roped in this case on the basis of false allegations because they had tried to remove the complainant from the position of an agent as he behaved in an indecent manner with the passengers.

After hearing the final arguments of both the parties and carefully evaluating the evidence as well as post examining the law prevailing in this matter, the trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 341, 323 and in alternate 323/34 of the IPC and acquitted them from the charges under Sections 3(1)(r) (s) and 2(va) of the SC/ST Act.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants did not commit the crimes as alleged by the prosecution and that the case of the prosecution is not supported by the prosecution witnesses as many independent witnesses have turned hostile. Moreover, the testimonies of PW-5, 6 and 7 reveal that theer was no such incident taht took place between the complainant and the accused-appellants but the same was not taken into account by the trial court before passing the judgment of conviction. The accused persons are innocent and deserve to be acquitted.

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the accused-appellants and submitted that there is enough evidence on record to sustain the conviction of the accused-appellants and that the trial court has appreciated the evidence aptly and adequately after thorough examination of the material available on record and has passed the judgment of conviction in accordance with the law applicable in the matter.

Heard. Gone through the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and other material available on record.

After careful scanning of the evidence brought on record, this Court is of the opinion that no error has been committed by the learned trial court in appreciating the evidence brought before it and the accused-appellants have been rightfully convicted for the offences mentioned above. The factual and legal aspects of the matter have been duly dealt with and deliberated upon by the learned trial court before passing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, thus, there is no wiggle room left at all for interference by this Court in the instant matter.

In light of the above observations, this Court is of the opinion that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.06.2022 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases, Jaisalmer in Sessions Case No. 191/2017 does not warrant interference of this Court, thus, the same deserves to be upheld.

It is noticed that the accused-appellants are quite young in age and have no criminal antecedents. The crime was committed by them in their youthful exuberance and it appears to be an incident that arose out of heat of passion and took place in spur of the moment. It has been apprised to this Court that the appellant-Ravi Kumar is an educated person and is seeking employment.

Considering the factors mentioned in the preceding paragraph, though the impugned judgment and order need not be interfered with, however, it is deemed fit to remove the disqualification attached to the conviction as stipulated under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act which provides that a person who has been found guilty of committing an offence and has been dealt with under the provision of Section 3 or 4 shall not suffer disqualification that may be attached to his/her/their conviction.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.06.2022 is affirmed. The order of sentence dated 27.06.2022 is upheld to the extent of grant of benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, however, the same shall not impede the career/future prospects of the appellants or adversely affect their service/professional pursuits.

All pending applications, including the applications preferred under Section 389 of CrPC, stand disposed off.