[2025:RJ-JP:19301] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 87/2007 Laxman Prasad Son Of Shri Charan Lal, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Village Kurka P.s. Uchhain District Bharatpur ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p 2. Shri Suresh S/o Shri Tularam, Resident Of Kurka Police Station Ucchain District Bharatpur (Raj) 3. Dharmchand @ Dharma Son Of Tularam, Resident Of Kurka Police Station Ucchain District Bharatpur (Raj) 4. Udairam Son Of Shri Tularam, Resident Of Kurka Police Station Ucchain District Bharatpur (Raj) 5. Lekhraj Son Of Shri Tularam, Resident Of Kurka Police Station Ucchain District Bharatpur (Raj) 6. Tula Ram Son Of Shri Gyasiram, Resident Of Kurka Police Station Ucchain District Bharatpur (Raj) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Gupta for Mr. Yogesh Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devi Singh, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 07/05/2025 1. Aggrieved from judgment dated 14.06.2006 in criminal case No.208/2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Roopwas, Bharatpur whereby respondent Nos. 2 to 6 were convicted under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 341 IPC and further released on probation under Section 5 of Probation of Offenders Act, instant revision petition is preferred by petitioner complainant. By [2025:RJ-JP:19301] (2 of 3) [CRLR-87/2007] impugned order, the respondents No.2 to 6 were also acquitted from charge under Sections 324/149, 325/149 and 336/149 IPC. 2. Considered submissions of learned counsel for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the trial court has committed serious error by allowing benefit of probation to respondent Nos. 2 to 6. He further submitted that grant of probation will boost courage of accused to commit similar nature of crime with complainant and his family members. He further submitted that when trial court has found respondents guilty for the offence committed by them then adequate punishment be awarded to them. He further submitted that by impugned order respondents were acquitted from charges under Section 324 and 325 IPC and order of acquittal is contrary to material on record. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the case of complainant petitioner. 5. After considering the submissions of learned counsel for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor, it has come to the notice that the trial court after considering the evidence of Doctor PW-6 has drawn a conclusion that injuries were of simple in nature. There is not a single iota of material which could indicated that any of the injuries sustained is a grievous injury. The trial court has also considered statement of injured and found discrepancies between evidence of Doctor and ocular evidence. 6. After considering the material on record, the trial court has acquitted respondents accused from Sections 336, 324 and 325 IPC. We have considered the evidence of prosecution particularly cross-examination. [2025:RJ-JP:19301] (3 of 3) [CRLR-87/2007] 7. Having gone through the material on record, I am of considered view that the grounds are not sufficient to interfere in the order of acquittal passed by trial court. Similarly respondents were extended benefit of probation and granted to them as there was no previous criminal antecedents. The maximum punishment for which respondents were found guilty was less than seven years. 8. Instant revision petition sans merits and same is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, revision petition is hereby dismissed. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /02