[2025:RJ-JP:40265] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 455/2005 1. Hargyan (Died) Son of Magalram Gurjar 2. Layakram son of Mangalram Gurjar 3. Mahesh Kumar son of Mangalram Gurjar Residents of Village Alipur, P.S. Mundawar District Alwar. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through P.P. 2. Mukhram alias Mukhi Son of Amichand Gurjar 3. Bularam son of Arjun Gujar 4. Manohar son of Amichand Gujar 5. Sanwalia son of Amichand 6. Amichand son of Gursahai (No.2 to 6 All residents of Village Alipur, Police Station Mundawar, District Alwar. --Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Aradhana Swami, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP None Present. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Judgment Date of Reserve :: 27.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement :: 06.10.2025 1. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 2001 and the present criminal revision is pending since 2005. 2. The present criminal revision petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 15.04.2005 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Kishangarbas (Alwar) in Sessions Case No.43/2003, in which the learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 6 for the offences under Sections 308, 325, and 323 of the IPC. [2025:RJ-JP:40265] (2 of 5) [CRLR-455/2005] 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial court at page 8 of its judgment held as under:- “vfHk;qDrx.k eq[kjke iq= vehpUn xwtj] cqykjke iq= vtqZu xwtj] euksgj iq= vehpUn xwtj] lkaofy;k iq= vehpUn xwtj] vehpUn iq= xq:lgk; xwtj fuoklh xzke vyhiqj iqfyl Fkkuk eq.Mkoj ftyk vyoj dks Hkk-n-la- dh /kkjk 323] 325] 308 ds vkjksiksa ls nks’k eqDr fd;k tkrk gSA muds mifLFkfr gsrq fy;s x;s tekur eqpyds fujLr fd;s tkrs gSaA eky otg lcwr vihy dh vof/k xqtjus ds ckn fu;ekuqlkj u’V dj fn;k tkosA” 4. The observations of the learned trial court are against the evidence led by the prosecution. It is vehemently argued that PW- 6 Layakram, PW-7 Hargyan, PW-8 Dharamveer and PW-9 Mahesh Kumar founded the fact that the petitioners, after causing grievous injury to PW-6 Layakram, threw him into a ditch which was located in the field. It is also vehemently argued that the learned trial court wrongly observed that the accused-petitioners had the right to private defence; the evidence led before the Court unequivocally demonstrated that the accused persons were aggressors and assaulted PW-6 Layakram. It is also argued that the statement of DW-1 suffers from contradiction and the inference drawn by the learned trial court that the accused acted in right to private defence is against the facts. It is also contended that even if it is assumed that the accused-respondents acted in their right to private defence, the injuries sustained to [2025:RJ-JP:40265] (3 of 5) [CRLR-455/2005] PW-6 were disproportionate to the proper exercise of the right to private defence. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jai Dev Vs. State of Punjab AIR, 1963, Supreme Court, 612, wherein it was held that it is necessary corollary to the doctrine of private defence which the citizens defending himself or his property is entitled, to use, must not be duly disproportionate to the injury sustained. It is contended that the eye-witness duly corroborated the injury inflicted on the PW-6 Layakram; therefore, the revision petition of the petitioners may be allowed, and the judgment dated 15.04.2005, whereby the respondents were acquitted, may be set aside. The respondents may be convicted and sentenced accordingly. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent Nos 2 to 6 justified the order passed by the learned trial court. It is vehemently argued that the petitioners Hargyan, Layakram and Mahesh Kumar were convicted by the trial court under Sections 447, 323, 324, 325 and 326 of the IPC, and the trial of this case and cross-case was held simultaneously. It is asserted that the observation made by the trial court rests upon the evidence led by the parties. It was a specific defence of the respondents before the trial court that on 16.12.2001, the petitioners trespassed into the field of the respondents with an intention to intimidate & annoy and thereafter caused injury to Bularam and Mukhram. The injuries sustained by Bularam and Mukhkram were found to be grievous in nature. It is also argued that due to a sudden attack on respondents, Bularam and [2025:RJ-JP:40265] (4 of 5) [CRLR-455/2005] Mukhram sustained 8 & 15 injuries, respectively, out of which one injury to them was inflicted with a sharp weapon, and the rest of the injuries were inflicted by using a blunt weapon. The Investigating Officer investigated the case lodged by the respondents, and he was examined as PW-5 Rajveer Singh. In his cross-examination, Rajveer Singh undoubtedly stated that the incident occurred in the field, in the possession of the respondent party. The Investigating Officer categorically expressed that, after investigation, he found that the petitioners passed into the respondents' field and inflicted the injury. He has categorically expressed that the petitioners were aggressors. It is also contended that the independent witness, PW-9 Mahesh Kumar, however, had given evidence in favour of the petitioners; his version is one-sided, and he has concealed the fact that the respondent No.2-Mukhram and the respondent No.3-Bularam sustained injuries. He also endeavoured to switch the place of occurrence, expressing that the respondents dragged the petitioners into their fields. The statement of PW-9 Mahesh Kumar is not trustworthy. The prosecution has failed to establish that the respondents acted as aggressors and inflicted injuries to Layakram and Dharamveer; therefore, the revision petition of the petitioners deserves dismissal. 7. Heard and perused the material available on record. 8. It is not denied that against the petitioners, the respondents lodged a criminal case, and trials of both cases were held simultaneously. The learned trial court convicted the petitioners under Sections 447, 323, 324, 325 and 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC. In the cross case registered by the respondents, the [2025:RJ-JP:40265] (5 of 5) [CRLR-455/2005] Court, after examining the prosecution witnesses and after going through the statement of Investigating Officer Rajveer Singh, categorically held that the petitioners were aggressors and the right to private defence was available to the respondents and whatever injuries were sustained by the petitioners. It was due to the fall of injured Layak Ram in a ditch & the right exercised by the respondents. The petitioners were armed with a weapon, and they inflicted multiple injuries on the respondents. The independent witness, PW-9 Mahesh Kumar, has gone beyond the prosecution's story and tried to bring up the fact that the petitioners were dragged into the field of the respondents and were beaten. The statement of PW-9 Mahesh Kumar is not reliable and is only implied to endorse the petitioners' version. However, the Investigating Officer, PW-5 Rajveer Singh, who investigated both cases, concluded that the respondents had possession of the field, and the petitioners entered the field of the respondents, armed with weapons and assaulted Mukhram and Bularam with sharp and blunt weapons. The petitioners have failed to establish that they were not the aggressors and did not attack the respondents. The observations of the learned trial court, as indicated above, are based upon a proper appreciation of the evidence led in the present case and the cross-case. 9. This Court did not find any perversity in the judgment of the learned trial court. 10. Upshot to the above, the revision petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ramesh Vaishnav/86/19