Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 902 (RAJ)

Lala Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2008-03-28

DEO NARAYAN THANVI

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Merta dated 19.8.1988 whereby he convicted all the five accused-appcllants under Sections 332, 353 and 342 I.P.C. but acquitted them under Sections 147, 148, 395 and 308 I.P.C., however, accused appellant Lala Ram and Ganpat Ram were also convicted under Section 333 I.P.C. but the lady accused-appellants Smt. Reshki, Smt. Santaki and Smt. Rameshwari, who were convicted under Sections 332, 353 and 342 I.P.C. were released on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act imposing cost of proceedings Rs. 100/- for each of the offences to be deposited with the State. Accused-appellants Lala Ram and Ganpat Ram, were sentenced as under; Under Section 333 I.P.C. - Five year's R.I. with fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default to payment of further undergo three month's simple imprisonment. Under Section 332 I.P.C. - One year's R.I. with fine of Rs. 100/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. Under Section 353 1.P.C. - One year's R.I. with fine of Rs. 100/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment Under Section 342 I.P.C. - Six month's R.I. with fine of Rs. 200/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. 2. Pacts leading to this appeal are that on 29.6.1985 at 1.00 a.m. one Shri Umrao Khan submitted an F.I.R. before the SHO Shri Faglu Ram at Chak Dhani on 28.6.1985 he alongwith ASI Girdhari Ram went to investigate the case in F.I.R. No.79/85 and when they reached at Ren Ki Dhani, they saw accused Lala Ram and Ganpat Ram running towards their Dhani. On account of this, the policemen apprehending them and in turn the accused-appellants-came back and attacked on them with Lathis and Kassi. ASI Girdhari sustained injuries and was locked in the Dhani and the accused-appellants forcibly took belt and file. Thereafter, challan was filed against the accused-appellants. 3. Arguments on charge were heard and the learned trial Judge framed charges to which the accused-appellants pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined 13 witnesses. Statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they produced five witnesses in defence. After hearing arguments, the learned trial Judge convicted them as above. 4. Thereafter, challan was filed against the accused-appellants. 3. Arguments on charge were heard and the learned trial Judge framed charges to which the accused-appellants pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined 13 witnesses. Statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they produced five witnesses in defence. After hearing arguments, the learned trial Judge convicted them as above. 4. Without going into the merits of the case, learned counsel for the accused-appellants submitted that this is a 23 year old case and lady accused-appellants have already been released on probation by the learned trial Judge in the year 1985 and accused Lala Ram and Ganpat Ram are now quite matured and they are living peacefully, therefore, they should also be released on probation. 5. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, especially in view of the fact that during investigation and trial accused Lala Ram remained in custody for a period of about 45 days and accused Ganpat Ram for a period of 15 days, the ends of justice will meet if they are now released on probation by imposing cost of proceedings. 6. Consequently, this appeal filed by accused appellants Lala Ram and Ganpat Ram is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the above five accused-appellants Lala Ram and Ganpat Ram they are released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act provided each of them furnishes personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- with a surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge provided they keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year and deposit the cost Rs. 1,000/- each. The appeal of lady accused-appellants is dismissed.Appeal partly allowed. *******