Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 317 (RAJ)

Uttam Singh v. State

2015-02-04

BANWARI LAL SHARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 06.11.1996 passed by the learned Sessions Ju0dge, Jaisalmer in Criminal Appeal No. 17/1995 affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.06.1995 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer in Criminal Original Case No. 145/1992, whereby the petitioner-accused was convicted for the offences under Sections 457 and 354 IPC and was sentenced as under:- U/s. 457 IPC: Six months' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default whereof to further undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment. U/s. 354 IPC: Three months' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200/-, in default whereof to further undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 16.04.1992, complainant Magh Singh submitted a report that he was out of Jaisalmer, his son Hari Singh came at Jaisalmer and told that when his wife and son were sleeping, Uttam Singh came there and caught her feet and asked her not to shout and when his wife asked him as to how he came to her house on which he told her not to shout and that he will give her Rs. 50/-. On her raising hue and cry, neighbours Jade Kanwar and jethmal Singh reached there on which Uttam Singh ran away. 3. On the basis of this report, an FIR was registered and investigation commenced. After investigation, the police filed charge-sheet and after hearing, charges were framed against the petitioner-accused for the offences under Sections 354 and 457 IPC to which he denied and claimed for trial. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined as many as five witnesses. The petitioner-accused was thereafter examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he examined Sujan Singh (DW-1) in defence. 4. After hearing, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioner-accused vide impugned judgment and order dated 12.06.1995. The petitioner-accused, being aggrieved of the same, preferred appeal, which was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 06.11.1996. Hence, this revision petition. 5. I have heard Mr. Ranjeet Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. MS Panwar, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not press the conviction arid sentence of the petitioner-accused. Hence, this revision petition. 5. I have heard Mr. Ranjeet Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. MS Panwar, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not press the conviction arid sentence of the petitioner-accused. However, it was submitted that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the matter is quite old and that the petitioner remained in custody for more than one month, he may be granted the benefit of the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 7. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the request of granting benefit of the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and submitted that the petitioner-accused has molested the dignity of a lady and thus the said benefit cannot be extended to him. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. 9. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner has not pressed the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner, therefore, this revision petition stands dismissed. 10. However, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, specially the facts that the matter relates to the year 1992 and the petitioner remained in custody for one month eight days in this matter and facing the agony of protracted trial since 1992, I deem it proper to extend the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and instead of sending him in custody, impose adequate cost of proceedings. It is, therefore, directed that the petitioner-accused be released on his entering into a bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court to maintain peace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years and that he will appear and receive sentence as and when called upon during this period. It is also ordered that the petitioner-accused shall deposit a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as cost of proceedings before the learned trial court. It is also ordered that the petitioner-accused shall deposit a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as cost of proceedings before the learned trial court. The surety bond, bail bonds and the cost be submitted within a period of two months from today, failing which, the revision petition shall be treated to have been dismissed and in that case, the trial court will be free to take steps to send the petitioner-accused in State custody to serve the remaining sentence.The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. 11. The record of the courts below be sent back with a copy of this order. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 278/2011 F/M Purshottam Das Pawan Kumar vs. Balvindra Singh04.2.2015Banwari Lal Sharma, J.None present.None appeared on behalf of both the parties. Therefore, notice be issued to the petitioner as well as respondent for their personal appearnace before this court on the next date, i.e. 20.3.2015 to the effect that either they themselves appear before this court or through their counsel and argue the matter, failing which, the revision petition may be disposed of by the court in their absence.Revision disposed of. *******