Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 779 (RAJ)

Ram Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

1999-06-30

S.C.MITAL

body1999
JUDGMENT 1. - By his judgment dated 10.1.1995, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pillibanga convicted the petitioner No. 1 Ram Kumar for the offences under Secs. 458, 324, 323 and 326 read with 34 I.PC. and petitioner No. 2 Sahib Ram for the offences under Section 458, 326, 323 and 324 read with 34 I.RC. in Cr. Case No. 487/92 and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and fine. The petitioners preferred appeal which was decided on 20.3.1999 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh whereby the conviction of the petitioners was maintained for the offence under Secs. 458, 324 read with 34 I.RC. and the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 326 and 326 read with 34 I.RC. was set-aside. Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction, the petitioners have filed this revision petition. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that Smt. Sampat daughter of the complainant Muriidhar was married to petitioner Ram Kumar. But their relations became strained and a case under Section 498-A I.RC. was pending against Ram Kumar. On 10.3.1992 Smt. Sampat was staying at the house of her parents. It is alleged that the petitioners entered In the house by opening the window in the main gate and lifted the daughter of the complainant Smt. Sampat. When Muriidhar protested, Ram Kumar petitioner inflicted injuries by knife to Mgrlidhar and also caused injuries to Smt. Sampat. The police submitted charge-sheet after investigation and the petitioners faced the trial which ended in their conviction as stated above. 3. I have gone through the evidence on record and also heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. It is vehemently contended that the offence under Section 458 I.RC. is not proved at all by the statements of Smt. Sampat and the complainant Muriidhar because there is no evidence to show that the petitioners committed lurking house trespass or house breaking, as alleged by them. There is material contradictions and improvements in the statements of the complainant with regard to the manner of committing the alleged trespass vis a vis the F.I.R. and statement under Section 161 Cr.RC. The complainant Muriidhar has completely improved his version by stating that the petitioners came by scaling down the wall of the Bada. 4. There is material contradictions and improvements in the statements of the complainant with regard to the manner of committing the alleged trespass vis a vis the F.I.R. and statement under Section 161 Cr.RC. The complainant Muriidhar has completely improved his version by stating that the petitioners came by scaling down the wall of the Bada. 4. I have perused the statement of complainant Muriidhar who has deposed that the petitioners came after jumping over the gate. In his statement under Section 161 Cr.RC. marked Ex.D-1, he stated to the police that the petitioners came through the small window in the main gate. This fact is also stated by him in the F.I.R. which has been lodged by him on the same day at 10.15 PM. soon after the occurrence. He has denied to have stated to the police portion A to B in Ex.D-1 but this explanation is not acceptable and I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that to this extent the complainant has improved or exaggerated his statement with regard to the manner of committing the trespass by the petitioners. Therefore, I find no evidence on record to establish any act of lurking house trespass or house breaking on the part of the petitioners. However, it is proved that the petitioners entered the house through the small window of the main gate. In view of this position, the offence under Section 452 I.RC. is proved instead of Section 458 I.RC. because the petitioners committed trespass in the house of the complainant to commit an offence after making preparation to cause hurt by arming themselves with knife. 5. I have gone through the whole evidence on record and the impugned judgments. I am of the view that the offence under Secs. 452 and 324 read with 34 I RC. is proved beyond reasonable doubt against the petitioners and there is no reason to disturb their conviction for these offences. 6. It was then argued that the case relates to the year 1992, almost seven years have lapsed. The petitioner Ram Kumar is son-in-law of the complainant and due to certain dispute his wife Sampat was staying with her father i.e., the complainant Muriidhar. In the back ground of the above facts, a lenient view may be taken against the petitioners regarding the quantum of sentence. The petitioner Ram Kumar is son-in-law of the complainant and due to certain dispute his wife Sampat was staying with her father i.e., the complainant Muriidhar. In the back ground of the above facts, a lenient view may be taken against the petitioners regarding the quantum of sentence. The punishment for the offence under Section 324 read with 34 I RC. awarded tc the petitioners by the learned Trial Court is one year rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 100/- fine. In view of the fact that the offence under Section 458 I.RC. is not proved, the punishment, may be reduced to the already undergone. The petitioner No. 1 Ram Kumar has already suffered imprisonment for seven months. The petitioner No. 2 Sahib Ram has also remained in jail for three months and twenty days. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the reduction of the sentence. In the facts and circumstances of the case and its pendency for the last more than seven years, their being no repetition of the blow and a single injury to Muriidhar, I deem it just and proper to reduce the term of imprisonment. 7. In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed. The conviction under Section 458 I.RC. is altered to Section 452 I.RC. The petitioners are hereby held guilty of the offences under Secs. 452 and 324 read with 34 I.P.C. The sentence of imprisonment for both the offence is reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the fine for the offence under Section 324 read with 34 I.RC. is enhanced to Rs. 500/- on each of the petitioners and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Similarly each of the petitioners shall pay fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 452 I.RC and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The petitioners are directed to deposit the fine within 15 days from today failing which they shall surrender before the Trial Court to undergo the imprisonment awarded in default of payment of fine otherwise the Trial Court shall issue warrant of arrest against the petitioners for serving out the aforesaid term of imprisonment. A sum of Rs. 1,000/- shall be paid to the injured complainant Muriidhar and Rs. 1,000/- to the injured Smt. Sampat out of the amount deposited as fine by tne petitioners.Revision Petition in partly allowed. *******