Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 348 (RAJ)

Bena Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2015-02-06

BANWARI LAL SHARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - This Revision Petition has been preferred against the Judgment dated 18.9.1995 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 32/1995 party allowing the Appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.7.1995 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No. 52/1990 and the petitioners-accused were acquitted for the offences under Sections 324 and 324/149 I.P.C. but their conviction and sentence for the offence under Sections 458, 148 and 147 I.P.C. was maintained. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 7.8.1989, Kana Ram submitted a written report at P.S. Jhanwar alleging therein that the daughter of Bagaram, viz. Radha got married with Rama for which a case was registered and Radha gave statement in favour of Rama due to which Bagaram developed enmity. On that day, Bagaram, Bachnaram, Udaram, Baringaram, Mangia, Karim Khan, Benaram, Raika and one bheel and bheel of Samdari came armed with lathi, dhariya, sword etc. in a Jeep at about 1.00 A.M. in the night and inflicted injuries on Bhakar and Gopa by their respective weapons and also took away the jwellery of Sonki. On their raising hue and cry, Kumbh Singh, Ratan Singh and Vijaram intervened. 3. On the basis of this report, an F.I.R. No, 68/1989 was registered at P.S. Jhanwar and investigation commenced. After investigation, the Police filed charge-sheet. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jodhpur wherefrom the same was transferred to the Court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Trial Court'). After hearing, charges for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 323/149, 324/149 and 458 I.P.C. were framed against the petitioners-accused except petitioner-accused Basharam. The petitioner-accused Basnaram was charged for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 458, 324, 324/149 and 323/149 I.P.C. The petitioner-accused denied the charges and claimed for trial. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses. The petitioners-accused were thereafter examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they claimed the prosecution evidence as false and did not lead any evidence in defence. 4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses. The petitioners-accused were thereafter examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they claimed the prosecution evidence as false and did not lead any evidence in defence. 4. After hearing, the learned Trial Court convicted the petitioner-accused vide impugned Judgment and Order dated 25.7.1995 and sentenced them as under:- Petitioner-accused Basnaram : Under Section 148 I.P.C. : Three months' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200/-, in default whereof to further undergo 15 days simple simple imprisonment. Under Section 458 I.P.C. : Six months' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200/-, in default whereof to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. Under Section 324 I.P.C. : Three months' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200/-, in default whereof to further undergo 15days' simple imprisonment. Other Petitioners-accused: : Under Section 147 I.P.C. : Three months' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200/-, in default whereof to further undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment. Under Section 458 I.P.C. : Six months' rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200/-, in default whereof to further undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment. Under Section 324/149 I.P.C. : Three months' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200/-, in default whereof to further undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment. 5. The petitioners-accused, being aggrieved of the same, preferred Appeal, which was, partly allowed vide impugned Judgment dated 18.9.1995 and the petitioner-accused Basnaram was acquitted from the offence under Section 324 I.P.C.; and the rest of the petitioner-accused were acquitted from the offence under Section 324/149 I.P.C. However, the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 458 I.P.C. against the petitioner-accused, for the offence under Section 148 I.P.C. to the petitioner-accused Basnaram and for the offence under Section 147 I.P.C. to the rest of the petitioners-accused were maintained. 6. I have heard Mr. Hanuman Khokar, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Deepak Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. 7. Since Petitioner-Accused No. 2-Baga Ram son of Shri Dungar Ram was expired during the pendency of this Revision Petition, therefore, the proceedings against him were terminated by this Court vide Order dated 12.5.2014. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioners did not press the conviction and sentence of the petitioners-accused. Deepak Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. 7. Since Petitioner-Accused No. 2-Baga Ram son of Shri Dungar Ram was expired during the pendency of this Revision Petition, therefore, the proceedings against him were terminated by this Court vide Order dated 12.5.2014. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioners did not press the conviction and sentence of the petitioners-accused. However, it was submitted that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the facts that the matter is quite old and that the petitioners remained in custody for some time, they may be granted the benefit of the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 9. 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 injured Bhakar Ram suffered nine injuries on his body and thus the said benefit cannot be extended to him. 10. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. 11. Since the learned Counsel for the petitioner has not pressed the conviction and sentence awarded to the Petitioners No. 1 and 3 to 5, therefore, this Revision Petition stands dismissed to the extent to conviction of the petitioners. 12. However, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, specially the facts that the matter relates to the year 1989 and the petitioners remained in custody for some time in this matter and facing the agony of protracted trial since 1989 and have already been acquitted by the Appellate Court from the offence under Sections 324 and 324/149 I.P.C., I deem it proper to extend the benefit to Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and instead of sending them in custody, impose adequate cost of proceedings. It is, therefore, directed that the Petitioners-Accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 be released on their entering into a bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court to maintain peace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years and that they will appear and receive sentence as and when called upon during this period. It is also ordered that each of the Petitioners-Accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 shall deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000/-as cost of proceedings before the learned Trial Court. It is also ordered that each of the Petitioners-Accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 shall deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000/-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 Petitioners-Accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 in State custody to serve the remaining sentence. 13. The Revision Petition stands disposed of accordingly. 14. The record of the Court below be sent back with copy of this order.Revision disposed of. *******