MUNSHI SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act as well as on merits. There is total delay of 28 days. The petitioner, who obtained degrees of B.A. and B.Ed., was unemployed and during the month of May, 1998 he was busy in applying for a job in different institutions. The appeal should have been filed on or before 6.5.1998 but he could hot do so because of he being busy in searching out a job. He could not contact a lawyer at Jodhpur for this reason. An affidavit in support of it has been filed which is not controverted by learned PP. Hence delay is condoned. Defect stands removed. Office is directed to register the petition.

(2.) So far as merits are concerned. Karni Singh, Samunder Singh and Munshi Singh were tried for offences under Secs. 336, 323, 324/34 IPC before the Judicial Magistrate, Churu and were convicted by the Magistrate and were given benefit under the probation of offenders Act. The allegations were that on 20.9.1995 at about 08.30 P.M. when complainant Mukan Singh, his brother Satu Singh and Mahaveer Singh were sitting outside in the chowk of their house and were busy in talking each other. Karni Singh, Samunder Singh and Munshi Singh and one Pawan Kumar came who were armed and gave beatings. Hanuman Singh and Inder Singh came there and then these persons ran away. Then they started pelting stones after ascending on their roofs. They had inimical terms from before. FIR No. 110/95 was registered and after investigation challan was submitted. Karni Singh, Samunder Singh and Munshi Singh were tried and convicted as stated above. Out of them Munshi Singh filed an appeal before learned Sessions Judge, Churu which came to be decided by learned Additional Sessions Judge on 28.1.1998. He dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner accused submitted that no case was made out against the petitioner and that he should have been acquitted. The settled law is that second reappreciation of evidence is not permitted when reappreciation of evidence has been done by the appellate Judge. There appears to be no fault in the finding of the Trial Court as well as of the appellate court. So far as sentence is concerned, the petitioner has been given benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act which appears to be proper in this case.