Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1209 (RAJ)

Darshan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2005-04-25

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-This criminal appeal under Section 11(2) of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short the Act hereinafter) is directed against the Judgment and order dated 17.09.2001 passed by Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Sriganganagar (for short the trial Court hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 75/1998 whereby the trial Court convicted the appellants as follows:- (1) Darshan Singh : under Sections 147, 452,323 IPC. (2) Jaswant Singh : under Sections 323,341,147,452 IPC. (3) Amarjeet Singh : under Sections 147,452/149,323 IPC. (4) Malkiyat Singh : under Sections 147,452/149,323 IPC. (5) Baljeet Singh : under Sections 147,452/149,323 IPC. (6) Jogendra Singh : under Sections 147,452/149,323 IPC. (7) Sukhdev Singh : under Sections 147,452/149,323 IPC. (8) Kuldeep Singh : under Sections 147,452/149,323 IPC. 2. The accused-appellants have been convicted for the aforesaid offences. However, instead of sentencing them at once to any imprisonment, they were released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short the Act hereinafter) and ordered to submit bonds in the sum of Rs. 5,000/-each to keep peace and tranquility and be of good behaviour for a period of two years. The trial Court also ordered to each of the accused under Section 5 of the Act to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/-to Smt. Tulsi witin a period of 30 days from the date of Judgment . Aggrieved by Judgment and order impugned, the appellants have filed the instant appeal. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellants and the Public Prosecutor for the State as also the Counsel for the complainant. 4. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants do not challenge their conviction for the offences noticed above as also the granting beneflt of Section 4(1) of the Act, however, confines arguments only to the extent of awarding compensation under Section 5 of the Act. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the Judgment and order impugned. The accused-appellants were put to trial for the offences under Sections 147, 341, 452, 323, 324, 504, 452/149 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the SC/ST Act hereinafter). Learned Public Prosecutor supported the Judgment and order impugned. The accused-appellants were put to trial for the offences under Sections 147, 341, 452, 323, 324, 504, 452/149 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the SC/ST Act hereinafter). However, on appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellants for the offences under Sections 324, 147, 323, 504, 452/149 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, and acquitted them for these offences. The trial Court found the appellants guilty of the offences referred to hereinabove and accordingly convicted them and granted benefit of the Act. First information report Ex. P/1 was registered on the basis of statement of complainant Smt. Tulsi, who suffered following injuries; "Lacerated wound ½ x 1/6 Inch deep - left elbow-blunt. Abrasion ¼ x 1/6 Inch - left index finger-blunt. Lacerated wound 1 x 1/6 Inch bone deep-front parietal region -blunt." 5. Apart from Smt. Tulsi, two more persons viz. Harish and Dhoni suffered simple injuries vide Ex. P/6 and Ex. P/7 respectively. In the very occurrence, Appellant No. 5 Jaswant Singh suffered as many as six injuries vide Ex.D/7, one of which was grievous in nature vide Ex. D/8. Appellant No. 7 Sukhdeo Singh suffered as many as four injuries including the injury on left frontal parietal region of the skull by sharp-edged weapon vide Ex. D/9. Appellant No.1 Darshan Singh suffered three injuries vide Ex. D/10. The injuries suffered by the accused appellants are comparatively much more than the injuries suffered by the complainant party. In the whole of the Judgment impugned, the trial Court has failed to discuss and appreciate the defence evidence and even the prosecution has not explained such large number of injuries suffered by the accused-appellants. Before the trial court, the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt for the offence noticed hereinabove. However, keeping in view the injuries suffered by the appellants, the trial Court was not justified in directing the appellants to pay a compensation of Rs. 1000/-each to complainant Smt. Tulsi. 6. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant challenging their conviction for the aforesaid offences and granting of benefit of Section 4(1) of the Act fails and is hereby dismissed. 1000/-each to complainant Smt. Tulsi. 6. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant challenging their conviction for the aforesaid offences and granting of benefit of Section 4(1) of the Act fails and is hereby dismissed. However, the order impugned directing the appellants to pay the compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,000/-each is hereby set aside. Since, at the time of admission of the appeal, the order directing payment of compensation was stayed, the stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.