Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1932 (RAJ)

Keshav Deo Katara v. State of Rajasthan

2008-08-13

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
Judgment Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—These two appeals are arising out of the common judgment of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, No. 5 Jaipur City, Jaipur dated June 4, 1987, hence both are decided by a common judgment. (2). This is an appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated June 4, 1987 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 12/1984 whereby he convicted the accused-appellants Keshavdeo, Raj Bahadur, Radhey Singh and Munna Lal for the offences under Section 148, 323 and 325 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and convict them as under:- u/S. 148 IPC. One year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50/-; in default 15 days simple imprisonment to each u/S. 323, 325 readwith Section 149 IPC:-2 years rigorous imprisonment & fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment one month simple imprisonment to each. (3). The learned trial Court convicted the accused-appellant Naresh Chand Sharma for the offence under Section 148 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced as under:- u/S. 148 IPC — One year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50; in the event of default in making payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. u/S. 324 IPC — 2 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/- in the event of default in making payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month simple imprisonment. (4). The brief facts of the case are that on 30.12.1983 at about 6.00 P.M. When Ved Prakash Tyagi (PW. 5) was coming back to his house by his scooter from Police Station Brahampuri after lodging a report then, and as soon as he reached at a little distance further of Choraha of Jogeshwar Mahadeoji, the accused appellants viz. Keshavdeo Katara, Munna Lal Sharma, Raj Bahadur, Naresh Chand, Radhey Singh and their other colleagues stopped him, he made slow his scooter, the above named accused persons who were armed with lathies and knife (Naresh was having knife) started beating to him [Ved Prakash Tyagi (PW. 5)]. It is further alleged that co-accused Naresh Chand gave knife blow on his back of PW. 5 Ved Prakash Tyagi and other accused appellants gave beating by lathies. P. Gandhi (PW. 6) friend of Ved Prakash Tyagi (PW. 5) was present at that time and Kailash Pahalwan (PW. 5)]. It is further alleged that co-accused Naresh Chand gave knife blow on his back of PW. 5 Ved Prakash Tyagi and other accused appellants gave beating by lathies. P. Gandhi (PW. 6) friend of Ved Prakash Tyagi (PW. 5) was present at that time and Kailash Pahalwan (PW. 9) (Wrestler) also the eye witness of the said incident who intervened. PW. 5 Ved Prakash Tyagi had fallen down on the ground. By telephonic message the report was given to the police by P. Gandhi (PW. 6). (5). On the basis of the aforementioned Parcha Bayan a first information report bearing No. 149/1983 was chalked out at Police Station, Brahmpuri, Jaipur for offences under Section 307, 147, 341, 323 IPC and investigation commenced. After investigation, the police filed a challan before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Ist Class, Jaipur City, Jaipur where the same was committed to the Court of learned trial Court for the offences under Section 324, 325, 307, 147, 48 and 149 IPC. (6). The learned trial Court framed the charges against the accused persons. No specific charges under Section 307 IPC was framed against accused persons. (7). The charges were read over and explained to the accused-appellants who denied for the same and claimed for trial. (8). During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 10 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. (9). Thereafter, the statement of accused appellants were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In support of their case the accused-appellants also produced two defence witnesses namely DW.1 Surendra and DW.2 Radhey Shyam. (10). After hearing both the parties, the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur vide his judgment dated June 4, 1987 convicted and sentenced the accused appellants for the offences mentioned hereinabove. (11). Aggrieved against the judgment and order of the learned trial Court dated June 4, 1987, the accused-appellants preferred this appeal. (12). In this appeal Mr. P.K. Sharma and Mr. Hawa Singh appearing on behalf of accused-appellants made a request to the Court that they are not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of court below, but they are only requesting to this Court that the sentence should be reduced for the period already undergone. (13). (12). In this appeal Mr. P.K. Sharma and Mr. Hawa Singh appearing on behalf of accused-appellants made a request to the Court that they are not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of court below, but they are only requesting to this Court that the sentence should be reduced for the period already undergone. (13). The learned counsels have urged to this court that all the accused-appellants are Government servants and they are facing trial from last 25 years which is tentamounts to punishment and mental agony. According to them, the age of the accused appellants Keshav Deo Katara is 48 years, Raj Bahadur Sharma is 53 years, Radhey Singh Bhagoor is 51 years, Munnalal Sharma is 53 years and Naresh Chand Sharma is 49 years. All the accused-appellants having their family and their children who are of marriageable age. All the accused-appellants are working in the Ayurved Department of Government of Rajasthan as a "Vaidh." (14). The learned counsels have simply prayed to this Court that looking to the age and their government service and the date of incident which is taken place 25 years ago, their marriageable children and their family, they should be given benefit of Section 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, so that the this judgment will not effect to the service carrier of the accused-appellants. (15). The learned Public Prosecutor has controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and made a request to the Court that if the accused-appellants be released on probation, in such circumstances, the Court should give an order of compensation to be given by the accused-appellants to the injured Ved Prakash Sharma (PW. 5) as per Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act. (16). In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to take a lenient view in the matter and I do not want to send the accused-appellants back in jail. (17). For these reasons, I maintained the order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court but I released the accused-appellants under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act with a condition that if the accused-appellants furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of like amount for one year in the meantime to keep the peace and good behaviour. (18). 10,000/- with two sureties of like amount for one year in the meantime to keep the peace and good behaviour. (18). It is further clarified that this order will not effect the service carrier of the accused appellants under the Probation of Offenders Act (12 of the Act.) (19). The accused-appellants will pay Rs. 10,000/- each as a compensation to the injured PW. 5 Ved Prakash within a period of three months from today. If they will not pay the compensation to the accused-appellants within the stipulated time, then they will not entitle for the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act. (20). These two appeals is partly allowed.