Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1737 (RAJ)

Daya Ram v. State & Ors.

2004-12-06

H.R.PANWAR

body2004
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this revision petition is finally heard and disposed off at the admission stage. 2. The petitioner, who is a complainant, lodged first information report against respondent No. 2 being FIR No. 4/2004 with Police Station, Bijrad for the offences under Sections 451 and 509, IPC. After investigation, police led challan for the aforesaid offences against respondent No. 2. The charges were framed. The substance of charges were read over to the accused and the accused respondent denied the charges. However, subsequently, it appears from the order impugned that he was persuaded by the spirit of Lok Adalat and admitted his guilt. The trial Court convicted the respondent No. 2 for the offences under Sections 451 and 509 IPC. However, looking to his age and finding no adverse antecedents as also the respondent No. 2 was not previously convicted person and since he admitted his guilt voluntarily having been persuaded by the spirit of the Lok Adalat, the trial Court released him on probation by granting benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and directed him to pay a sum of Rs. 200/-as prosecution expenses. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hari Kishan and State of Haryana vs. Sukhbir Singh & Ors., reported in AIR 1988 SC 2127 , and a decision of this Court in Koja Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 1996 Cr LR (Raj) 231 and contended that granting benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the accused respondent may be justified, but the trial Court failed to grant compensation to the victim who suffered on account of act of the accused respondent. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that the respondent committed house trespass and made an attempt making gesture intended to insult the modesty of the victim, I consider it just and proper to modify the order impugned to the extent that instead of payment of Rs. 200/- as prosecution expenses, the accused respondent No. 2 shall pay a sum of Rs. 1000/-as compensation under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 5. 200/- as prosecution expenses, the accused respondent No. 2 shall pay a sum of Rs. 1000/-as compensation under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 5. Consequently, while maintaining the conviction of the respondent No. 2 for the offences under Sections 451 and 509, IPC, the respondent No. 2 is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1000/-before the trial Court within three months from today as compensation under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act which shall be paid to victim Jamna Devi. If the respondent has already deposited a sum of Rs. 200/- as prosecution expenses, the same may be adjusted towards the amount of compensation. 6. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of .