Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 420 (RAJ)

Ugersen v. State of Rajasthan

2013-02-19

BANWARI LAL SHARMA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The accused-petitioners were put to trial for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A I.P.C. with the allegations that one complainant Jagga Singh PW-1 lodged a report Ex.P-1 at P.S. Kesrisinghpur and stated that he is the resident of 42 GG. He married his daughters with Baldev and Ugersen, residents of Gharsana and gave dowry. After some time of marriage, the in-laws of her daughters started torturing them for bringing less dowry and took them out of the house on which they returned to his house and complained of the matter. Thereafter, he went to the in-laws of his daughters but they refused to keep them back. On this report, the police registered a case for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A I.P.C. and started investigation. After due investigation, the police filed challan against the present petitioners for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C., in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Karanpur, where the charges of the case were framed. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and closed the evidence. The accused petitioners were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioners denied the allegations of prosecution witnesses and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the offence and no defence evidence was produced. 2. The learned trial Court, after conclusion of the trial found the petitioners guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. and convicted them for the above offence and sentenced them to undergo 2 years' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default whereof to further undergo 2 months' simple imprisonment. 3. Feeling aggrieved with the above said judgment and order of sentence dated 25.9.1999, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Karanpur, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur. The said appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 14.10.2003. Still feeling dissatisfied with the judgments dated 25.9.1999 and 14.10.2003, the present revision petition has been filed. 4. This Court, vide order dated 22.10.2003, admitted this revision petition and record was called for. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners-accused have been falsely implicated in the matter. 4. This Court, vide order dated 22.10.2003, admitted this revision petition and record was called for. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners-accused have been falsely implicated in the matter. It has been submitted that the learned trial Court has acquitted them for the offence punishable under Section 406 I.P.C. Thus, the part of allegation that the dowry articles were not returned has not been believed. The allegation regarding demand of dowry has also not been proved. But both the Courts below have not considered these aspects of the matters and have wrongly convicted and sentenced them for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. He further submitted that the petitioners are facing the trial since long and have suffered persistent mental agony of protracted trial. The petitioners Nos. 2 and 4 Guljari Lal and Smt. Jangiro are old-edged persons. Therefore, if this Court also reaches on the conclusion that the petitioners-accused have committed tire offence, then looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, they may be extended the benefit of provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. 7. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgments of both the Courts below and submitted that both the Courts below have concurrently found the petitioners guilty of the offences and thus there is no need to interfere with the impugned judgments and order. 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. 9. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the impugned judgments, I find that the points taken by the petitioners have been elaborately discussed by the learned appellate Court. The learned appellate Court below, on the basis of the evidence brought on record, has found that the witnesses examined by the prosecution in the Court below, have fully supported the case against the petitioners. The learned appellate Court below has also taken into consideration that the witnesses are the close relatives and has found that the close relatives, in such cases, are the natural witnesses. In the statement of PW-2 Bhagwanti and PW-3 Meera, it has come out that the petitioners were demanding Rs. 10,000/- from each of them and started beating them on account of the said Rs. In the statement of PW-2 Bhagwanti and PW-3 Meera, it has come out that the petitioners were demanding Rs. 10,000/- from each of them and started beating them on account of the said Rs. 10,000/- and the Panchayat was also held regarding this issue and they were made to understand but that was of no consequence and both the sisters were kicked out from their matrimonial home after beating due to non-fulfilment of illegal demand of Rs. 10,000/-. The other witnesses have also supported the statements of PW-2 Bhagwanti and PW-3 Meera. Both the Courts below, relying upon the prosecution witnesses, found that the evidence on record is sufficient to held that the petitioner-accused demanded dowry of Rs. 10,000/- from PW-2 Bhagwanti and PW-3 Meera and their parents and in course of non-fulfilment of illegal demand, committed cruelty with them and kicked them out from the matrimonial home. As such the conviction of the petitioners by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellant, therefore, does not suffer from any infirmity for this Court of interfere in its revision jurisdiction. 10. As far as sentence is concerned, since the petitioners have been said to have undergone custody for few days, which submission is not seriously challenged by the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, in my view, having regard to the nature of the complaint, allegations and the incident dating back to the year 1990 and more than 22 years have been elapsed, the petitioners must have undergone sufficient mental agony of account of the matter being pending all these years in various Courts, the judgment of conviction passed against the petitioners by the Courts below is maintained. However, tire sentence passed against them is hereby set aside and the petitioners (1) Ugersen S/o Shri Guljari Lai, (2) Guljari Lal S/o Shri Ram Ditta (3) Baldeo S/o Shri Guljari Lal and (4) Smt. Jangiro W/o Shri Guljari Lal are given the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 11. Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed and while maintaining the conviction of the petitioners, the petitioners are extended the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and it is directed that: (i) Each of the petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs. 11. Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed and while maintaining the conviction of the petitioners, the petitioners are extended the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and it is directed that: (i) Each of the petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs. 7,500/- before the learned trial Court within a period of three months from today and on such deposit being made, the same shall be paid to the victims, i.e. daughter of complainant PW-2 Bhagwanti and PW-3 Meera in equal proportion; (ii) Each of the petitioners shall execute a personal bond in the sum of 1 10,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court within a period of three months from today undertaking to keep peace and maintain good behaviour and not to indulge in any criminal activity. They shall undertake to appear before this Court to receive any sentence, if so directed. The bond shall be valid fora period of two years; and (iii) It is further directed that in case of failure of the terms and conditions of the bond or not depositing the amount, the order of imprisonment shall revive and shall be duly and faithfully executed by me learned trial Court. Revision partly allowed. *******