Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1593 (RAJ)

Kanhaiya v. State of Rajasthan

2015-08-27

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2015
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 5.12.2003 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases and Addl. Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur in Sessions Case No. 42/2003 (30/2003), whereby he has acquitted the accused persons for the offence u/Sec. 308/34 IPC, but convicted the accused persons for the offence u/Sec. 452, 323 IPC and also convicted the accused Kanhaiya for the offence u/Sec. 325 IPC and accused Satya Narain for the offence u/Sec. 325/34 IPC and sentenced them as under: u/S. 452 IPC: Each of them has been sentenced to undergo 1 years' RI with a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days imprisonment. u/S. 323 IPC: Each of them has been sentenced to undergo 3 months' RI Accused Kanhaiya convicted for the offence under Section 325 IPC and accused Satya Narain convicted for the offence under Section 325/34 IPC and each of them has been sentenced to undergo 2 years' RI with a fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 months' imprisonment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.8.2002, the complainant submitted a written report at Police Station, Bonli. On the basis of said report, an FIR No. 132/2002 was registered at Police Station, Bonli for the offence under Sections 143, 452, 323, 308 IPC and investigation was commenced. After completion of investigation, the police filed the challan against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 452, 323, 308 and 325/34 IPC in the court of Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions from where the case was transferred to the trial court for trial. The trial court framed charges against the accused Kanhaiya for the offence under Sections 452, 308/34, 325, 323 IPC and against accused Satya Narain for the offence under Sections 452, 308, 325/34 and 323 IPC, who denied for the same and claimed for trial. The prosecution produced its witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter the statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 CrPC. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court vide his judgment and order dated 5.12.2003 convicted and sentenced the accused persons as indicated here-in-above. 3. Against the said judgment of the trial court this has been filed by the accused persons. 4. Thereafter the statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 CrPC. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court vide his judgment and order dated 5.12.2003 convicted and sentenced the accused persons as indicated here-in-above. 3. Against the said judgment of the trial court this has been filed by the accused persons. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the Court below, but he is only requesting to this Court that looking to the fact that the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2002 i.e. 13 years ago; accused appellant Kanhaiya has remained in custody for about 8 days, he is married person and having the children of marriageable age, it is the first offence of his life; he is not previously convicted person; he is facing the trial since the last 13 years; the appellant Kanhaiya was young at the time of commission of offence and now he is old aged person; he is agriculturist and poor person, hence accused appellant Kanhaiya should be released for the period already undergone by him in custody. 5. So far as the accused appellant Satya Narayan is concerned, he has contended that he is not the habitual offender nor previously convicted person; he is facing the trial since the last about 13 years; it is the first offence of his life; he belongs to a respectable family; he is married person, having the children of marriageable age; he was released on anticipatory bail, hence he should be released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders' Act. 6. Learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same. He has contended that the trial court on the basis of evidence submitted by both the parties, rightly convicted that accused persons, hence no interference is requi-red by this Court and thus, the appeal filed by the accused persons should be dismissed after confirming the judgment and order passed by the trial court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 8. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, in my view ends of justice would be met if the accused appellant Narpat is released for the period already undergone by him in custody, as indicated above; while accused persons Prahlad, Rajendra and Surendra are released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders' Act. 9. Hence, I pass the following order: (i) The criminal appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The conviction of the appellants is maintained. (iii) The sentence of accused appellant Kanhaiya is reduced and he is ordered to be released for the period already undergone by him in custody, as indicated here-in-above. (iv) The sentence of the accused appellant Kanhaiya was suspended and he is on bail. He need not to surrender and his bail bonds stand cancelled. (v) So far as accused Satya Narain is concerned, he is given the benefit of Probation of Offenders' Act and it is ordered that he shall be released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for a period of one year, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court with the stipulation that he shall keep peace and be of good behaviour for one year and that he will not commit any offence during the period of probation. He will also mention in the bonds that he will appear before the Court concerned and receive the sentence awarded by the trial court, as and when he is called upon to do so. (vi) The bonds, as mentioned above, will be furnished by the accused appellant Satya Narain within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment, failing which the trial court shall take action against him to serve out the sentence, as awarded by the trial court. (vii) The accused appellant Satya Narain is on bail. His bail bonds will be cancelled by the trial Court only after submitting the fresh bail bonds before the trial court, as mentioned here-in-above. Impugned judgment stands modified, as indicated hereinabove.