JEETMAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of filing this instant Criminal Misc. Petition under Sec. 528 BNSS, the petitioners have challenged the order dtd. 16/10/2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapasan, District Chittorgarh, in Criminal Appeal No. 62/2023 (18/2021), whereby the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 28/1/2021, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rashmi, District Chittorgarh, in Criminal Original Case No. 27/2014, was dismissed for want of prosecution. The petitioners were convicted for the offences under Ss. 147, 323/149, and 451/149 IPC and sentenced accordingly.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the complainant, Jodh Ram, had lodged a written report before the SHO, Police Station Rashmi, on 16/1/2014, alleging that on the same day at around 6.30 PM, while he was having a meal with his family, the accused persons had unlawfully trespassed into his house by jumping over the eastern wall and abusing him. It had been alleged that the accused Jeetmal, Rameshwar, and Kishan had entered the house, opened the gate, and facilitated the entry of other co-accused, who had collectively assaulted the complainant, his family members, and his mother using fists, kicks, lathis, and stones. Based on the said report, FIR No. 32/2014 had been registered, and after due investigation, a charge sheet had been filed against the petitioners for offences under Ss. 147, 149, 451, and 323 IPC.

(3.) Subsequently, charges had been framed against the petitioners, to which they had denied and claimed trial. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate, had convicted and sentenced the petitioners vide judgment dtd. 28/1/2021. Aggrieved, the petitioners had preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh, who had suspended the sentence on 23/2/2021 and summoned the Trial Court record. However, on 16/10/2024, due to the absence of both the petitioners and their Counsel, the learned Appellate Court had dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution and upheld the judgment of conviction and sentence. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred the present misc. Petition before this Court.