PADAM KUMAR & ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant cr. revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Crimial P.C. against the judgment dated 4.12.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer in Cr. Appeal (21)6A/94 affirming the judgment dated 21.2.1994 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer in Cr. Original Case No.160/88 by which both the accused petitioners were convicted and punished for following offences:

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the courts below committed gross error while convicting the accused petitioners for the aforesaid offences because no cogent evidence is produced in the learned trial court by the prosecution. More so, a concocted story was framed by the complainant that too was outcome of FIR registered by the petitioners, therefore, both the judgments impugned deserve therefore be quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that even if the court comes to the conclusion that offence under Sec. 332, 447 and 147 Penal Code is committed by the petitioners, then they were entitled for benefit of probation but both the courts below failed to exercise its jurisdiction for granting benefit of probation. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners invited attention of this court towards the judgments reported in 2007 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 250 : Ram Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and 1995 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 208 : Darshan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and submits that the petitioners may be granted benefit of probation under Sec. 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State submits that it is a case in which the government officials were assaulted by the petitioners when they were performing their official duty, therefore, no lenient view may be taken against them. More so, it is a case in which a serious view is to be taken against the petitioners. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that there is no force in this appeal, therefore, the same may be dismissed.