Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1528 (RAJ)

Ajay @ Lakhan v. State of Rajasthan

2014-09-16

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2014
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.— This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 11.6.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Baran in Sessions Case No. 227/2011, whereby the accused appellant has been acquitted for the offences under Section 307 and 326 IPC, but he has been convicted for the offences under Section 341 and 324 IPC and instead of sentencing him, he has been given the benefit of Section 4 and 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act and he has directed to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 2000/- as compensation, to be given to the victim. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: On 25.7.2009 complainant Mukesh lodged a report before Police Station, Kotwali, Baran, which was registered as FIR No. 498/2009 for the offences under Section 341, 323/34 IPC against the appellant. Thereafter the investigation was started and after completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the appellant for the offences under Section 307, 341, 326/34 IPC. Thereafter the case was committed to the Sessions Judge, Baran, who transferred the case to Addl. Sessions Judge, Baran for trial. The trial court framed charges against the appellant for the offences under Section 307, 341 and 326 IPC. The appellant denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter the prosecution submitted the witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter the statement of the appellant were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial passed the impugned judgment and order. The appellant denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter the prosecution submitted the witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter the statement of the appellant were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial passed the impugned judgment and order. The operative part of the impugned judgment and order is reproduced as under: ^^bl izdkj vfHk;qDr vt; mQZ y[ku iq= lqjs'kpUnz] tkfr&gfjtu] mez&24 lky] fuoklh⪫ dkWyksuh] ckjka] iqfyl Fkkuk dksrokyh ckjka] ftyk&ckjka dks /kkjk 307 o 326 Hkk-n-la- ds rgr naMuh; vijk/k ds vkjksiksa ls lansg dk ykHk fn;k tkdj nks"k eqDr ?kksf"kr fd;k x;k gSA mDr vfHk;qDr dks /kkjk 341 o 324 Hkk-n-la- ds rgr naMuh; vijk/k ds vkjksiksa esa nks"kh ik;s tkus ij vijk/kh ifjoh{kk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 4 dk ykHk fn;k tkdj vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd ;fn vfHk;qDr 10]000@& :i;s dk Lo;a dk eqpydk ,oa blh jkf'k dh tekur nks o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, bu 'krksZ ds lkFk U;k;ky; ds le{k is'k dj rLnhd djkos fd og mDr vof/k esa lnkpkjh cuk jgsxk] vijk/k dh iqujko`fr ugha djsxk] ifj'kkfUr dk;e j[ksxk ,oa blesa O;frØe fd;s tkus ij U;k;ky; }kjk vkgwr fd;s tkus ij n.Mkns'k gsrq U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gks tkosxk] rks mls ifjoh{kk ij NksM+ fn;k tkosA blds vfrfjDr vijk/kh ifjoh{kk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 5 ds rgr ;g Hkh vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd vfHk;qDr 1000 :i;s vfHk;kstu O;; Lo:i U;k;ky; esa tek djkosA lkFk gh /kkjk 357 na-iz-la- ds rgr ;g Hkh vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd vfHk;qDr 2000 :i;s izfrdj jkf'k Lo:i U;k;ky; esa tek djk;s] ftls ckn xqtjus fe;kn vihy izdj.k esa vkgr eqds'k mQZ ccyw mlds 'kjhj ij vk;h pksVksa dh {kfriwfrZ ds :i esa izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gksxkA vfHk;qDr ds U;k;ky; esa fu;fer mifLFkfr ckcr iwoZ esa izLrqr tekur eqpyds fujLr fd;s tkrs gSaA ryokj rFkk [kwu vkywnk Vh 'kVZ ckn xqtjus fe;kn vihy fu;ekuqlkj u"V fd;s tkosA** 3. Against the said judgment and order of conviction dated 11.6.2014 passed by the trial court, this appeal has been preferred. 4. Without going into the merits of the case, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant is a young person and he is a masonry worker. He is the only person in his family, who earns the livelihood. The age of the accused appellant was 21 years at the time of occurrence. 4. Without going into the merits of the case, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant is a young person and he is a masonry worker. He is the only person in his family, who earns the livelihood. The age of the accused appellant was 21 years at the time of occurrence. No other case is pending against the appellant except this one. He has been selected for the post of Sweeper and the select list has been published by Nagar Parishad, Baran on 7.8.2014 and the name of the appellant is appearing at Sr. No. 149 in the said list. He is quite innocent person. The accused appellant has been acquitted for the offences under Section 307 and 326 IPC, but convicted for the offences under Section 341 and 324 IPC and benefit of Sections 4 and 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act has been given to him. He has requested to this court that benefit of Section 12 of Probation of Offenders Act should also be extended in favour of the accused appellant so that the impugned judgment and order will not affect his future in any way. 5. Learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same. 6. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case that this is the first offence of the accused appellant; he is a masonry worker; he is the only person in his family, who earns the livelihood; he is not previously convicted person; he is a young person and he has been selected for the post of Swee-per by Nagar Parishad, Baran, in my view, it is a fit case to grant the benefit of Sec. 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act also to the accused appellant. 7. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. The benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders' Act is also extended to the accused appellant in addition to the benefit of Sections 4 and 5 of Probation of Offenders' Act, which has already been given to the appellant by the court below, so that the impugned judgment and order shall not come in the way of the appellant in getting the government service or any other service in future. 8. Rest of the terms under the impugned judgment and order shall remain unchanged. 9. The impugned judgment stands modified, as indicated here-in-above. 10. 8. Rest of the terms under the impugned judgment and order shall remain unchanged. 9. The impugned judgment stands modified, as indicated here-in-above. 10. Stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.