Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1641 (RAJ)

Lalit Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2015-09-08

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT : MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the judgment/order dated 27.6.2014 passed by Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Ajmer in Regular Criminal Appeal No. 260/2014 (232/2013), whereby the appellate court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment/order dated 23.7.2013 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, North, Ajmer in Cr. Case No. 332/1998 acquitting the accused persons for the offence under Section 406 IPC, but convicting them for the offence under Section 498A IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo 6 months' SI with a fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of fine, each of the accused person has been further directed to undergo 1 month's SI. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: “On 1.12.1998, the complainant Savita Kashyap submitted a written report to SHO, Police Station, Nasirabad, Ajmer. On the basis of said report, the SHO, Police Station, Nasirabad, Ajmer registered a case No. 11/98 for the offence under Sections 498A and 406 IPC and investigation was commenced. After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the accused petitioner before the concerned Magistrate. The trial court framed charges against the accused persons, who denied from the same and claimed trial. The prosecution produced witnesses and exhibited some documents. Thereafter the statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court vide judgment/order dated 23.7.2013 convicted and sentenced the accused persons as indicated above. Against the aforesaid judgment, appeal was preferred by the accused persons. The appellate court vide judgment/order dated 27.6.2014 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment/order passed by the trial court. 3. Against the aforesaid judgment/order dated 27.6.2014 passed by the appellate court, this revision petition has been preferred. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment, appeal was preferred by the accused persons. The appellate court vide judgment/order dated 27.6.2014 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment/order passed by the trial court. 3. Against the aforesaid judgment/order dated 27.6.2014 passed by the appellate court, this revision petition has been preferred. 4. At the very out-set, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the courts below, but he is only requesting to this Court that looking to the fact that marriage was solemnized on 20.5.1994 and thereafter the husband and wife were living together and on 1.2.1998, the report was submitted and upon that the accused persons have been acquitted for the offence under Section 406 IPC; the occurrence took place in the year 1998 i.e. about 17 years ago from today; the accused persons are facing the trial from the last 17 years which amounts to mental agony; the accused petitioner Lalit Kumar has remained in custody for about 1 month and 2 days; and accused petitioner Smt. Rama Devi has remained in custody for about 1 month and 3 days; they are not the habitual offenders; it is the first offence of their life; the alleged offence is triable by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, having 3 years' imprisonment; the divorce has already been taken place between the husband and the wife in the year 2010 and they are living separately from each other; hence the petitioners should be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders' Act and benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders' Act should also be given to accused Lalit Kumar, who is a Government Servant, so that his service career will not be affected, otherwise his whole family will be ruined as he is having old parents. 5. Learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 7. 5. Learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are facing the trial since the last 17 years; divorce has already taken place in between the husband and wife in the year 2010 and they are living separately; they have been acquitted for the offence under Section 406 IPC and they have been convicted only for the offence under Section 498A IPC, in my view it is a fit case to grant the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders' Act to the accused persons and to further grant the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders' Act to the accused Lalit Kumar, so that the impugne judgment will not affect his future in any way. Hence, this revision petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The revision is partly allowed. (ii) The conviction of the petitioners is maintained. (iii) They are given the benefit of Probation of Offenders' Act and it is ordered that they shall be released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for a period of one year, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) with one surety of the like amount before the trial court with the stipulation that they shall keep peace and be of good behaviour for one year and that they will not commit any offence during the period of probation. (iv) The accused petitioner Lalit Kumar is also extended the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders' Act also, so that the impugned judgment will not affect his service career in any way. (v) The bail bonds, as mentioned above, shall be furnished by petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment/order. (vi) The accused petitioners are on bail. Their bail bonds will be cancelled by the trial court only after furnishing the fresh bail before the trial Court, as mentioned above. Impugned judgment stands modified, as indicated hereinabove. Revision disposed of.