Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 984 (RAJ)

Pappu v. State of Rajasthan

2015-05-04

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This appeal has been filed by the Appellants against the judgment and order dated 26.2.1988 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Alwar in Sessions Case No.37/1986, whereby the accused appellants have been acquitted for the offence under Sec. 306 IPC, but convicted u/Sec. 498A IPC and sentenced them to undergo 2 years' RI with fine of Rs.200/-; in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1 month's R.I. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under:- "On 6.3.1986, PW.1 Wazir Chand lodged a written report at Police Station Ramgarh (Alwar) alleging therein that he had married his daughter Smt. Banto to Pappu @ Jawar Lal S/o Wazir Chand Rajput of village Aldhana some 9-10 months ago. After the marriage, the in-laws of his daughter were harassing her for dowry and giving beating. On 6.3.1986 at about 2.00 AM Ram Chandra along with some other persons of village Sahajpur came to him and informed that the dead body of his daughter was lying in the well, which was brought out and took away by Vajeer Chand and Pappu Ram @ Jawahar Lal at the home." 3. On the basis of said report, FIR was registered for the offence under Section 498A and 306 IPC and investigation was commenced. After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the accused appellants before the concerned Magistrate for the aforesaid offences. The Magistrate concerned committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The Sessions Judge transferred the case to Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Alwar for trial. The trial court framed charges against the accused appellants, 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 his judgment dated 26.2.1988 convicted and sentenced the accused persons, as indicated above. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment, this appeal was preferred. 5. 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 his judgment dated 26.2.1988 convicted and sentenced the accused persons, as indicated above. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment, this appeal was preferred. 5. At the very out-set, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that accused appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 498 A IPC; the alleged offence is triable by Judicial Magistrate, First Class; they have remained in custody for about 25 days; the appellants are not the habitual offenders; it is the first offence of their life; they are facing the trial from the last 29 years and they are having old aged parents and children, hence they should be released for the period undergone by them, if not, then they should be released on probation looking to the fact that offence under Section 498A IPC is triable by Judicial Magistrate, First Class. 6. Learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same. 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 appellants, I do not think it proper to release the accused appellants for the period already undergone by them, but in my view ends of justice would be met if the accused appellants are released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders' Act. Hence, this appeal is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The criminal appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The conviction of the appellants is maintained. (iii) The appellants 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. 30,000/- (Thirty Thousand) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court with the stipulation that he/she shall keep peace and be of good behaviour for one year and that he/she will not commit any offence during the period of probation. 30,000/- (Thirty Thousand) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court with the stipulation that he/she shall keep peace and be of good behaviour for one year and that he/she will not commit any offence during the period of probation. They will also mention in the bonds that they will appear before the Court concerned and receive the sentence, as and when called upon to do so. (iv) The bonds, as mentioned above, will be furnished by the accused persons within a period of two months, failing which the trial Court shall take steps against the accused appellants in accordance with law (v) The accused appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and they are directed to submit fresh bail bonds before the trial court, as mentioned above. Impugned judgment stands modified, as indicated hereinabove.