[2025:RJ-JP:40154] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 277/2019 Sugad Singh through His Wife Satyawati wife of Sugad Singh, resident of Jharkaie Police Station Nadbai, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan) ----Complainant-petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through PP ….Non-petitioner 2. Pappu @ Siyaram S/o Ramji Lal resident of Jharkaie Police Station Nadbai Dist. Bharatpur Raj. 3. Damo @ Damodar S/o Ramji Lal, R/o Jharkaie Ps Nadbai Dist. Bharatpur Raj. 4. Nawab Singh S/o Ramjilal, R/o Jharkaie Ps Nadbai Dist. Bharatpur Raj. 5. Hardam S/o Ramji Lal, R/o Jharkaie Ps Nadbai Dist. Bharatpur Raj. 6. Bholu @ Harvir S/o Ramji Lal, R/o Jharkaie Ps Nadbai Dist. Bharatpur Raj. 7. Rajjo @ Rajendra S/o Heti, R/o Jharkaie Ps Nadbai Dist. Bharatpur Raj. 8. Chain Singh S/o Heti, R/o Jharkaie Ps Nadbai Dist. Bharatpur Raj. 9. Rameshwar S/o Chain Singh, R/o Jharkaie Ps Nadbai Dist. Bharatpur Raj. 10. Pushpendra S/o Ashok, R/o Jharkaie Ps Nadbai Dist. Bharatpur Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Sharma, Mr. Utkarsh Goyal and Ms. Chanchal Sharma for Mr. Rajneesh Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP Mr. Banvari Lal Saini HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 26/09/2025 1. Instant S.B. Criminal Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioner-complainant aggrieved from the order dated 31.10.2018 in Criminal Revision No.178/2018 passed by [2025:RJ-JP:40154] (2 of 7) [CRLR-277/2019] learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur whereby after allowing the revision petition, the order of cognizance dated 02.07.2018 in Criminal Complaint No.243/2017 arising out of FIR No.441/2013 registered at Police Station Nadbai, District Bharatpur was set aside. 2. The facts of the instant criminal case are that complainant Sugad Singh (since dead) has lodged a report on 24.08.2013 at Police Station Nadbai alleging that his son Krishan Gopal was found dead near Welcome Hotel and on enquiry, it has come to his notice that Siyaram @ Pappu and eight other persons have deadly assaulted his son by using deadly weapons. After registration of case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323 and 302 of IPC, police has investigated the matter. After investigation, police has found that it was a case of accident and filed a charge-sheet against Hakim Singh son of Shivram Gurjar under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A IPC and Section 3/181 of MV Act. The complainant has filed a complaint cum protest petition before learned Judicial Magistrate, Nadbai wherein after examining complainant under section 200 CrPC and his witnesses under Section 202 CrPC, learned Judicial Magistrate, Nadbai has dismissed the complaint on 01.11.2014. Aggrieved complainant has filed a criminal revision before the Sessions Judge and same was transferred to learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Bharatpur and was decided as Criminal Revision No.53/2014 on 09.06.2016. Learned Revisional Court has set aside the order dated 01.11.2014 and remitting the matter directed the trial Court to pass a fresh order after hearing the parties. [2025:RJ-JP:40154] (3 of 7) [CRLR-277/2019] 3. After setting aside of order dated 01.11.2014, the matter was again registered by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadbai. During pendency of the complaint, Sugad Singh has expired and his wife and mother of deceased Satyawati was substituted to continue the complaint on behalf of complainant. 4. Learned trial Court on 02.07.2018 passed a detailed order and taken cognizance against nine persons Pappu @ Siyaram, Damo @ Damodar, Nawab Singh, Hardam Bholu @ Harvir, Rajjo @ Rajendra, Chain Singh, Rameshwar and Pushpendra under Sections 148, 341, 323, 302 read with Section 149 IPC. 5. Aggrieved nine persons (respondent Nos.2 to 10 herein) have filed a Criminal Revision No.178/2018 before learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur and same was allowed on 31.10.2018 whereby the order of cognizance dated 02.07.2018 was set aside and complaint was dismissed. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the present petitioner submitted that soon after the knowledge of death of deceased, the complainant has filed a report and same was registered under Section 302 IPC and, initially, a case was investigated as if it was a case of murder but later police investigation has changed under the influence and despite evidence of assault on body of deceased, a case of accident was filed against one accused. He further submitted that while considering the revision petition on 09.06.2016, learned Sessions Court has considered the circumstances and thereafter in detailed order dated 02.07.2018, learned [2025:RJ-JP:40154] (4 of 7) [CRLR-277/2019] trial Court has mentioned the evidence on record and found that there were anti-mortem injuries on body of the deceased. He further submitted that the revisional Court by impugned order dated 31.10.2018 has not only drawn an erroneous conclusion but placed reliance upon immaterial evidence and set aside the order of cognizance without any cogent reason. He submitted that the order passed by learned trial Court on 02.07.2018 is a detailed order and same is self-explanatory but the revisional Court has exceeded its jurisdiction. 7. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the respondents-accused and they submitted that it is a case of accident and due to animosity between the parties, it was given a colour of murder. He further submitted that the trial Court has not considered the investigation conducted by police while passing the order on 02.07.2018 and Revisional Court after considering the independent evidence collected by police, has set aside the order of cognizance. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record. 9. The material on record clearly indicate that initially a case was registered for culpable homicide (murder) of deceased Krishan Gopal and police has investigated the matter. 10. As per report submitted by police, on information police has reached the spot and despite report submitted by complainant, post-mortem was not conducted during night hours but everyone was of the opinion that it is a case of accident. Later, in the morning a case under Section 302 IPC [2025:RJ-JP:40154] (5 of 7) [CRLR-277/2019] was registered. As per police, due to rivalry in the village, at the instigation of same individuals, a Criminal Case under Section 302 IPC was registered by complainant. Police has also mentioned about registration of two cases, FIR Nos.317/2013 and 318/2013 as cross cases and further compromise in said matters. After investigation, police has found that it is a case of accident and filed a charge-sheet for rash and negligent driving by Hakim Singh resulting in death of son of complainant. The complainant has filed a complaint. After inquiry the trial Court has dismissed the complaint but on a revision petition the order was set aside and same was remitted back to the trial Court. 11. A perusal of order dated 02.07.2018 indicate that learned trial Court has substantiated the order of cognizance with detailed reasons, particularly, referred the statement of witnesses and also possible role and involvement of respondent Nos.2 to 10. The trial Court has also mentioned injures upon dead body of deceased and found them as anti- mortem in nature caused by assault and not by accident. The trial Court has also placed reliance upon two eye- witnesses Nitu and Bhudev, particularly, noticing their evidence and injures, available on record has passed an order of cognizance. 12. Learned Revisional Court has placed reliance upon investigation and post incident circumstances, particularly, the conclusion drawn by police. It is evident from order dated 31.10.2018 that hearsay evidence of Shokat Ali (SDM) was given weightage over the evidence of eye-witnesses. [2025:RJ-JP:40154] (6 of 7) [CRLR-277/2019] The learned revisional Court has further mentioned the evidence as recorded by police but not trusted by complainant and set aside the order of cognizance on the ground that the evidence of complainant is not trustworthy. 13. Section 397/401 CrPC empower the revisional Court to set aside an order having patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law but there has to be a well found error and it may not be appropriate for the revisional Court to scrutinized the order which open the face of them bear a token of careful consideration and appears to be in accordance with law. A revisional Court can exercise jurisdiction where the judgment of trial Court is grossly erroneous, non-compliance of legal provision and findings are perverse and judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily. We can place reliance upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Anil Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chandra and anr. : (2012) 9 SCC 460 wherein it was clearly laid down that a revisonal Court should refrain for exercising jurisdiction on factual aspect unless there is an abuse of process of law. 14. A revisional court must remain within its jurisdiction while deciding a revision as it cannot usurp the appellate jurisdiction. In appeal appreciation and re-appreciation of evidence is permissible and findings of fact can be interfered but in case of revision, appreciation and re-appreciation of evidence is impermissible and finding of fact cannot be interfered unless same is perverse and against the material on record. It is also settled position that the finding recorded [2025:RJ-JP:40154] (7 of 7) [CRLR-277/2019] by trial Court cannot be altered by revisional Court merely because another view on same evidence is possible. 15. Having considered the material available on record, I am of considered view that the Revisional Court while passing the order dated 31.10.2018 has over-stepped the basic parameters while deciding the revision of respondent Nos. 2 to 10. Therefore, the order dated 31.10.2018 is itself perverse and illegal. The revisional Court has not considered the revision within the points as mandated under the law. Therefore, it would be appropriate to set aisde the order dated 31.10.2018 and remitted back the matter to the revisional Court for decision afresh on revision filed by the respondent Nos.2 to 10 after providing an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 16. As a result, the instant revision petition filed by complainant- revision petitioner is allowed and order dated 31.10.2018 in Criminal Revision No.178/2018 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur is set aside. The revision is remitted back to the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, for decision afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties but without being influenced from earlier order passed by same Court. 17. The parties are directed to appear before learned Sessions Court on 27.10.2025. 18. Misc. Application, if an, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/27