Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1298 (RAJ)

Vijay Singh v. State

2014-07-01

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2014
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 16.11.2006 passed by learned special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jhalawar in sessions case No. 54/2004 whereby he has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:- Accused Vijay Singh : For Offence under Sec. 325 IPC: Two years simple imprisonment and Rs. 5000/- fine. In case of default of fine, the accused will undergo six months simple imprisonment. If such amount is paid, then both the injured Smt. Kailash Bai and Smt. Achuk Bai, will get Rs. 2000/- each as compensation and balance amount be deposited in government treasury. Accused Bhawani Singh: u/S. 325 IPC: For a period of one year simple imprisonment and Rs. 2000/- fine. In case of default of fine, the accused will undergo three months simple imprisonment. u/S. 323 IPC : For a period of three months simple imprisonment and Rs. 1000/- fine. In case of default of fine, the accused will undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the occurrence took place on 13.7.2004 at about 10-11 am. They have not lodged the report immediately but they have submitted the complaint before the I.G. Range, Kota. Upon this, IG-Kota Range forwarded the complaint to S.P. Jhalawar for taking action and the SP forwarded the same to SHO, PS-Khanpur, Distt. Jhalawar. Upon this complaint, the FIR bearing No. 212/2004 was registered at P.S. Khanpur on 15.7.2004 for offence under Secs. 447, 427, 323 read with Sec. 3 of SC.ST Act. After investigation, police filed challan before the trial court, who framed charges against the accused appellants, to which they denied and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and got exhibited certain documents. Statements of accused appellants under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial court vide order dated 16.11.2006 convicted and sentenced the appellants. Against the said order dated 16.11.2006, the appellants preferred this appeal. 3. The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and got exhibited certain documents. Statements of accused appellants under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial court vide order dated 16.11.2006 convicted and sentenced the appellants. Against the said order dated 16.11.2006, the appellants preferred this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that without going into the merits of the case, he is not challenging the conviction & sentence part of the judgment of the court below, but he is only requesting to this court that since accused appellant Vijay Singh is Government servant, working in Electricity Board, and both the appellants belong to the respectable family, it is their first offence of their life and they are not the habitual offenders, therefore, if benefit of probation under Sec. 4 and 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act is not given to the appellants, their entire career will be spoiled. Hence, benefit of probation under Sec. 4 & 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act may be given to the appellants. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the same and contended that the impugned order passed by the trial court is just and proper. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 6. Looking to the facts & circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants that appellate Vijay Singh is Government servant, working in Electricity Board, it is their first offence, they are not habitual offender, I think it just and proper to give benefit of probation to the appellants u/Sec. 4 and 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed with the following directions: (i) Their conviction & sentence as awarded by the court below vide order dated 16.11.2006 is maintained. (ii) I deem it just and proper to give benefit of Sec. 4 and 12 of Probation of Offenders Act to the appellants, if they submit personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- before the trial court for keeping peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year, and this order will not come in the way of the appellants in future and also in Government job. 20,000/- before the trial court for keeping peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year, and this order will not come in the way of the appellants in future and also in Government job. (iii) Impugned judgment of the trial court stands modified, as indicated here-in-above. (iv) their bail bonds stand canceled and rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned order shall remain unchanged.