[2025:RJ-JP:43193] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 528/2025 Amratlal S/o Shri Buddhram, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Sultanpur P.s. Wazirpur District Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor 2. Bharosilal S/o Parsadi, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Khatipura P.s. Wazirpur 3. Ramkishore S/o Bharosi, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Khatipura P.s. Wazirpur 4. Beerbal S/o Mangal, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Khatipura P.s. Wazirpur 5. Suresh S/o Ramswaroop, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Khatipura P.s. Wazirpur 6. Girraj S/o Harphool, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Khatipura P.s. Wazirpur 7. Kirodilal S/o Parsadi, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Khatipura P.s. Wazirpur 8. Balram S/o Ramjilal, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Khatipura P.s. Wazirpur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Satish Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr.Amit Kumar Gupta, Dy.GA-cum-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 28/10/2025 1. By way of filing this revision petition, the petitioner is seeking prayer for enhancement of the sentence awarded to the accused-respondents vide impugned judgment dated 11.11.2024. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on a report filed by the petitioner, the accused-respondents faced trial and [2025:RJ-JP:43193] (2 of 2) [CRLR-528/2025] were found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, 325 & 308 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, but they have been awarded a lesser sentence. Counsel submits that under Section 3(2)(va) of the of SC/ST Act, the maximum sentence prescribed is 7 years, but an inadequate sentence of only 2 years has been awarded to the accused-respondents, hence, the instant petition has been preferred for enhancement of their sentence. 3. In the considered opinion of this Court, the appeal under Section 14-A of the of SC/ST Act is maintainable against the impugned judgment dated 11.11.2024 passed by the Special Judge of SC/ST Cases, hence, this revision petition is not maintainable and on this count alone, the same is rejected granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act. 4. Office is directed to return the certified copies and Vakalatnama to the counsel for the petitioner, after retaining the photocopies of the same on the record. 5. Needless to observe that the petitioner would be entitled to get the benefit of exemption under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /132