Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1695 (RAJ)

Amolak Chand v. State of Rajasthan

2015-09-21

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment/order dated 22.12.1989 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Sikar in Sessions Case No. 2/1988 (70/1983), whereby he while acquitting the co-accused persons Basanta, Banwari and Sohni accused and acquitting accused Amolak for the offence under Sections 147, 395, 397, 325, 323/149 and 325/149 IPC and accused Rajkumar for the offence under Sections 147, 395, 397, 323/149 and 325/149 IPC, but convicted the accused persons Amolak and Rajkumar for the offence under Section 452, 325/34, 324/34 and 323 IPC and granted the benefit of probation u/S. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the accused Amolak Chand and also granted the benefit of probation to the accused Raj Kumar. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.10.1989, Vishwanath Sharma submitted written report at Police Station, Laxmangarh, on the basis of which the FIR No. 89/1981 was registered. Thereafter the investigation was commenced and after investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the accused person before the Court of Magistrate concerned under Section 324 and 325/34 IPC. Thereafter a complaint was filed by Ramesh Chand against the accused persons on the same set of facts. After recording the statements of the complainant and his witnesses, the trial court took cognizance for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 307, 452, 395 in alternate 397 read with Section 149 IPC. Thereafter the revision petition was filed against the said cognizance order. The Sessions Judge, Sikar vide order dated 16.5.1983, set-aside the cognizance order qua Section 307 IPC. Thereafter the Magistrate concerned committed the case to the Court of Sessions, who transferred the case to the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sikar for trial. 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 dated 22.12.1989 acquitting the co-accused persons, convicted the accused persons and released them on probation as indicated above. 3. Against the aforesaid judgment, this appeal has been preferred. 4. 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 dated 22.12.1989 acquitting the co-accused persons, convicted the accused persons and released them on probation as indicated above. 3. Against the aforesaid judgment, this appeal has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel the appellants has contended that he is pressing the appeal filed on behalf of appellant Amolak Chand, but so far as the appeal filed on behalf of Raj Kumar is concerned he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the court below, but he is only requesting to this Court that alleged incident is said to have taken place in the year 1981 i.e. about 34 years ago from today; the appellant is facing the trial since the last 34 years; the accused appellant Rajkumar is married person and having the sons and daughters; it is the first offence of his life; and he is not previously convicted person; he has already been-given the benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, and since he is a Government servant hence he also should be given the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders' Act also, so that the impugned judgment will not affect his future in any way. 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 parties, in my view ends of justice would be met if the accused appellant Raj Kumar is also given the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders' Act. Hence, this appeal is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The appeal filed on behalf of Amolak Chand is dismissed as not pressed. (ii) The appeal filed by the appellant Raj Kumar is partly allowed. (iii) The accused appellant Raj Kumar is also given the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders' Act in addition to the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, which has already been given to him by the trial court, so that the impugned judgment/order will not affect his future in any way. (iii) The accused appellant Raj Kumar is also given the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders' Act in addition to the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, which has already been given to him by the trial court, so that the impugned judgment/order will not affect his future in any way. 8. Impugned judgment stands modified, as indicated here in above. *******