[2025:RJ-JP:38279] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 154/2007 1. Girdhar son of Banay Singh 2. Gopal son of Rupe (Died) (Abate) Resident of Ghasola, Police Station Sewar, District Bharatpur (At present confined in Sewar Jail, Bharatpur) ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kapil Nagayach for Mr. Rajveer Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 16/07/2025 1. Instant criminal revision petition is preferred by the petitioners-accused 1. Girdhar and 2. Gopal after dismissal of Criminal Appeal No.50/2006 by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bharatpur on 14.02.2007 affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 10.10.2001 in Criminal Case No.54/1989 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Bharatpur whereby the petitioners-accused were convicted under Sections 332 and 353 of IPC and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of ₹200/- for each of the offence to each of the accused. 2. During pendency of this revision petition, one of the petitioner Gopal has expired and proceedings were abated [2025:RJ-JP:38279] (2 of 4) [CRLR-154/2007] against him. Now we are considering this matter upto the extent of Girdhar. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for alleged incident dated 26.12.1988, police report was registered after a delay of 11 days on 06.01.1989 and without disclosing reasons of delay. He further submitted that no independent witness was named by complainant and the Investigating Officer was not examined by the prosecution to explain the discrepancies arising during trial. He also referred evidence of PW-4 Om Prakash Sharma and PW-1 Laxman Singh and submitted that the statements are contradicted to each other and they do not inspire confidence. He further submitted that PW-2 Nirpath has turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. He also referred prosecution story and submitted that nowhere it was established that PW-4 Om Prakash Sharma was discharging his official duties at the time of alleged incident. He also referred evidence of PW-4 and submitted that no medical was conducted as no injuries were sustained during incident. At last, he submitted that the petitioner accused have faced agony of criminal proceedings for last more than 30 years and a lenient approach be adopted. 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. 6. On basis of complaint Ex.P-3 submitted by PW-4 Om Prakash to the Department is forwarded by letter Ex.P-4 to police for [2025:RJ-JP:38279] (3 of 4) [CRLR-154/2007] registration of case and FIR No.8/1989 is registered on 06.01.1989. Two persons Gopal and Girdhar were named by PW-4 in Ex.P-3 but these persons were not known to him and on basis of identification by other Forest Guard he named these persons. During trial injured is examined as PW-4 and his admission clearly indicate that no medical report of injures was prepared as there was no visible injury. The sequence of events as mentioned by PW-4 clearly indicate that when intercepted and stopped from carrying grass bundle from forest, accused Gopal has slapped PW-4 Om Prakash Sharma. The evidence of PW-4 clearly indicate that it was a sudden provocation and there was no premeditated plan of both the accused. One of the petitioner accused Gopal has expired and proceedings were abated against him, therefore, we are considering role of petitioner accused Girdhar. 7. The admission also indicate that accused is not known to PW-4 Om Prakash and PW-1 Laxman and they have not met with accused, before or after the incident. The evidence of PW-1 Laxman Singh suggests that he is an eye-witness but his admission in cross-examination indicate that he reached on the spot five minutes after the incident. PW-2 Nirpat, who is also a cattle guard, was declared hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. PW-3 Brijbihari has forwarded the report Ex.P-3 to police. There is no record to show and prove appointment and duty letters of PW-4. The record Ex.P-5, Ex.P-6 were just exhibited and not proved by the person who issued them and assigned duty to PW-4. The [2025:RJ-JP:38279] (4 of 4) [CRLR-154/2007] main allegations is upon Gopal, who has expired. There is no eye-witness to the incident as PW-1 has reached the spot after the incident. 8. Having considered the material discrepancies in the statement of PW-1 and PW-4 and in absence of independent witness, the material contradictions were not explained, therefore, the trial Court and the Appellate Court has committed serious error while convicting the petitioner accused Girdhar. Therefore, the petitioner accused Girdhar is entitled for benefit of doubt on basis of the discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-4. 9. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the instant criminal revision petition is hereby allowed and the judgment of conviction dated 10.10.2001 in Criminal Case No.54/1989, affirmed in Criminal Appeal No.50/2006 by order dated 14.02.2007, is hereby set aside and the petitioner accused Girdhar is acquitted from the charge under Sections 332 and 353 of IPC. The bail and bonds filed for attendance stand discharged. 10. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/85