AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By way of these two revisions, the petitioners herein have approached this Court for challenging the judgment dated 14.09.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Udaipur, camp Mavli, District Udaipur in two separate appeals whereby, the appellate court rejected the appeals preferred by the petitioners herein against the judgment dated 17.01.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mavli, District Udaipur in Criminal Case No.585/2012 convicting and sentencing the
petitioners as below:
U/S 342/34 IPC - 3 months' S.I. and a fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days' S.I.
U/S 384/34 IPC - 1 year's S.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1 month's S.I.
U/S 394/34 IPC - 2 years' S.I. and a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 2 months' S.I. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Shri Deepak Menaria, learned counsel representing the petitioners vehemently urged that even if the prosecution case is admitted as such, ex-facie the offences under Sections 394 / 34 and 384 / 34 IPC are not made out against the petitioners. At best, they can be held guilty for the offence under Section 342 / 34 IPC.
For the said offence, the petitioners have already suffered significant period of imprisonment and thus, he implored the Court to reduce the sentences awarded to the petitioners to the period already undergone by them. In the alternate, Shri Menaria urged that by way of showing humanitarian approach and to provide solace to the injured Parasmal Jain for the injuries received by him in the incident, the petitioners are ready to offer reasonable and wholesome compensation of Rs.50,000/- to him and hence urged that the revisions deserve to be partly accepted by suitably
reducing the sentences awarded to the petitioners.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioners' counsel. He urged that the petitioners acted brutally and inhumanly with the complainant Parasmal. His evidence remained controverted. The petitioners had mortgaged some ornaments with the complainant Shri Parasmal Jain. He was passing by the petitioner Laxman Singh's house. Nanudas saw him and invited him into Laxman Singh's house with a vicious design in mind. There, he was locked up inside a room and was assaulted by an iron window grill and was inhumanly beaten by lathis, fists and slaps. His gold ring and mobile were snatched away by Nanu Das and his mobile phone was taken away and handed over to Laxman Singh. Cash amount to the tune of Rs.150/- lying in the complainant's pant pocket was also looted. Thereafter, Laxman Singh threatened the injured Parasmal with a sword and made up a story that his wife Smt. Laxmi Kanwar had been molested and a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- would have to be paid for compensating her. When the victim refused to the said illegal demand, he was forced to sign three promissory notes in the name of Laxmi Kanwar by way of extortion. The complainant lodged a prompt report at the Police Station Mavli as soon as he was freed from the clutches of the accused. The allegations levelled by the complainant are duly corroborated by his medical report (Ex.P/4) as per which, he was found having seven bruises located all over the body. The promissory notes which were got written by way of extortion and the looted mobile phone were recovered at the instance of the accused. Two competent courts have recorded concurrent findings of facts against the petitioners and as such, no leniency is called
for on the aspect of sentences awarded to them as well.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the parties and have
gone through the record.
As rightly observed by the trial court as well as the appellate court, the allegations made by the complainant in his report and evidence were duly corroborated by the injury report and the photographs available on record which indicate presence of large number of injuries on his body which seem to be inflicted after tying him up and are indicative of custodial violence. The complainant had given loan to the accused party who had kept some ornaments as mortgage by way of security. He was given a false assurance of settlement and then was locked inside the house of the accused and was brutally assaulted. His mobile phone was snatched away After making a false insinuation of molesting Laxmi Kanwar, the complainant was extorted to execute three promissory notes which were recovered at the instance of accused Laxman Singh. The promissory notes clearly bear signatures of the complainant Parasmal Jain.
The petitioners have been convicted by the trial court for the offence under Sections 394 / 34 IPC for the reason that they looted the gold ring, an amount of Rs.150/- and a mobile phone from the complainant. Their conviction for the offence under Section 384 / 34 has been recorded for getting the promissory notes executed forcibly. However, ex-facie the conviction of the petitioners as recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court for the offence under Section 394 IPC is not substantiated and corroborated by evidence of recovery because when the complainant Parasmal was examined in the court as PW- 1, he was not made to identify the mobile and the ring allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused. Thus, I am not satisfied with the findings recorded by the courts below while convicting and sentencing the accused petitioners for the offence under Section 394 / 34 IPC. However, the remaining findings are based on thorough and just appreciation of evidence and do not warrant any interference whatsoever.
Thus, while accepting the revisions in part, the conviction of the petitioners as recorded by the trial court for the offence under Section 394 / 34 and affirmed by the appellate court is quashed and set aside. They are acquitted of the said charge. However, the conviction of the petitioners as recorded and affirmed by the learned courts below for the offences under Section 384 / 34 and 342 / 34 IPC is maintained.
Learned counsel Shri Menaria has fairly offered that the petitioners are ready to repent for their mistakes and offered compensation of Rs.50,000/- to be paid to the complainant and in this background, I feel that while upholding the conviction of the petitioners for the offences under Sections 342 / 34 and 384 / 34 IPC, the sentences awarded to them by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court for these offences deserve to be reduced to the period already undergone by them while suitably enhancing the fine imposed on them so as to compensate the complainant.
Accordingly, the instant revision is allowed in part. Whilst partly modifying the impugned judgment dated 14.09.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Udaipur, camp Mavli, District Udaipur and the judgment dated 17.01.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mavli, District Udaipur, the accused petitioners are acquitted from the charge under Section 394 / 24 IPC. However, their conviction is affirmed and maintained for the offences under Sections 384 / 34 and 342 / 34
IPC. The substantive sentences awarded to the petitioners for these offences are reduced to the period already undergone by
them. As observed above, the fine of Rs.1,000/- awarded to each petitioner for the offence under Section 384 / 34 IPC is enhanced to a sum of Rs.17,000/-. In default of payment of fine, each petitioner shall further undergo six months simple imprisonment.
The petitioners Laxman Singh (Revision No.1192/2017) and petitioner Nanu Das (Revision No.1191/2017) are in custody. Upon depositing the amount of fine in the trial court, they shall be released from jail forthwith if not wanted in any other case. The petitioner Smt. Laxmi Kanwar @ Laad Kanwar is on bail. She shall deposit the amount of fine within a period of 15 days whereupon her bail bonds shall stand discharged. In case, she fails to deposit the fine amount, she shall be taken back into custody to serve out the default sentence. From the total amount of fine, a sum of Rs.50,000/- shall be paid to the complainant Parasmal Jain after verifying his identity.
Record be returned to the court below.
A copy of this order be placed in each file.