- (1.) Since all the aforementioned three revision petitions arise out of common judgment dated 20.11.2014 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Merta, the same are heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. By way of Criminal Revision Petition no. 422/2015, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.11.2014 with the prayer that the accused respondents should be punished and they should not be granted the benefit of probation and further a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on each accused respondents No. 2 to 6 should be imposed and same be given to the petitioner and his family members by way of compensation. By way of filing Criminal Revision Petition No. 17/2015, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 20.11.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta in Criminal Appeal No. 112/2011 whereby, the order of conviction passed against the petitioners was maintained for offences under Sections 148, 447, 323/149 and 325/149 IPC and amount was compensation was enhanced from Rs. 1000/- to 10,000/- per accused.
(2.) In Criminal Revision Petition No. 21/2015, the petitioners accused have challenged the order dated 20.11.2014 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Merta in Criminal Appeal No. 107/2011 whereby the learned Sessions Judge affirmed the judgment dated 02.11.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Merta and convicted the petitioners for offences under Sections 148, 447, 323/149 and 325/149 IPC. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record. Both the learned courts below, after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, have concurrently reached at the conclusion that the petitioners-accused caused simple injuries to the complainant party and grievous hurt to the injured Kuna Ram. The statement of witnesses also find corroboration from the medical evidence. The learned trial court however, granted the benefit of probation to all the accused and imposed the penalty of Rs.5000/-. Upon filing appeal by the complainant, the learned appellate court partly allowed the appeal and while maintaining the order granting benefit of probation to the accused, enhanced the penalty from Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 10,000/-. This court has a very limited jurisdiction while interfering with the concurrent finding of the courts below and in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reason to interfere with the finding given by courts below. Further in the opinion of this Court, looking to the relation between the parties, the learned trial court has rightly granted the benefit of probation to the accused while imposing penalty which has been enhanced by the learned appellate court from Rs.5000/- to Rs.10,000/-.
(3.) Accordingly, no interference is called for in the impugned judgments, hence, all the revision petitions are hereby dismissed.;