Mahesh and Others vs State of Rajasthan

Guman Mal Lodha, J.—"Shock therapy" to anti social ''pirates'', for deterrence to crimes of primitive horror. Inhuman and barbaric nature, is the day. This judges have duty for suppressing grievous injustice to humanist values by inflicting condign punishments on dangerous deviants, has persuaded this court to do the unpleasant duty to inflict maximum sentence of imprisonment for life in this extreme case of mass blinding reminding ''Dara Shika'' medieval dark days.

This therapy of Justice Iyer, ''Sarkaria" innovation in Parasram''s case (1981) 2 SCC 684, 713 pleaded for ''Shocktherapy'' to such anti social ''piety for deterrence to crimes of primitive horror, barbaric and inhuman nature. Iyer Sarkaria J. termed the duty of a Judge to give such deterrent sentence as ''high duty'' for suppressing grievous injustice to humanist values by Inflicting condign punishments on dangerous deviants and observed:

Just one more observation relevant to the punishment. The poignantly pathological grip of macabra superstitions on some crude Indian minds in the shape of desire to do human & animal sacrifice, in defiance of the scientific ethos of our cultural heritage and the scientific impact of our technological century, shows up in crimes of primitive horror such as the one we are dealing with now, where a blood-curdling butchery of one''s own beloved son was perpitated aided by other ''pious'' criminals, to propitiate some blood thirsty deity. Secular India, speaking through the court, must administer shock therapy to such anti-social ''piety'' when the manifestation is in terms of inhuman and criminal violence. When the disease is social, deterrence through court sentence must, perforce, operate through the individual culprit coming up before court. Social Justice has many facets and judges have a sensitive, secular and civilising role in suppressing grievous injustice to humanist values by inflicting condign punishment on dangerous deviants. In discharge of this high duty, we refuse special leave in these applications against the correct convictions and sentences of the courts below.

While Bhagalpur blinding shocked the conscious of Society, compelling the Apex Judiciary to take activist approach, the Rajakhera, Malkhera and Rajgarh blindings are other species of inhuman, barbaric, atrocities & violence. The only difference is that the criminals in Bhagalpur were either police or jail officials, but in Rajakhera it is ''quacks'' criminology The object, in Bhagalpur was to punish criminals to stop crimes and terrorise them, but in Rajakhera it is to squeeze money, by impersonation as surgeons, exploiting, ignorance, illiteracy and poverty of villagers.

While in the first, activist approach of Apex Court''s outcome, is series of Judicial orders and classical judgments:

1982 PLJR 24 (SC)

(1981) 1 SCC 623 Khatri-I v. State of Bihar; Khatri and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, Khatri and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, ; Khatri and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, ; and Anil Yadav and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Bachcho Lal Das, Superintendent, Central Jail, Bhagalpur, Bihar, .

In the second, the Judiciary was not activised by P.I.I, or A.L. or victims and the peoples anguish was contained by registration of criminal cases, resulting in convictions of a few, for cases of the three camps, for known noticed blinding and the instant case is third in that series.

An eye camp turned into "Hall of Horror" (Wax Museum of London) when quacks cruelly pierced the eyes in Darashikoha medieval style and, left mass blinding humanity, whose tears were in blood. Dr. Mahesh Chandra Tyagi turned out to be not even a nurse or a mature surgeon, but an imposter, shocking mankind and ashaming humanity. It became an eye grave, where Mahesh had massacre and butchery of eye sights and earned few silver coins on their dark eye coffins.

This case represents an illustrative instance of cruel and barbaric manner in which Darashikoha (Aurangjeb''s son)blinding was done by piercing pins and cutting eyes, ruthlessly by blades in a most inhuman manner. The administration with all its intelligence wings and police force even after two earlier mass-blinding Camps of Malkhera and Rajgarh in close vicinity of the present camp of Rajakhera, could not prevent the eye-butchery. This is a crime against the very essence of humanity and is a barbaric act which deserves strongest condemnation from all sections of the community. The greed and lust for a few silver-coins can be so ruthless and inhuman as to deprive fellow human beings of their eye sight is beyond one''s imagination. It shows the depth of deprivity of the quacks and who stooped down to mass blinding in this strak human tragedy. I am shocked to hear the plight of these unfortunate persons, who have been the victims of this barbaric cruelty resulting in complete loss of eye sight. Such brutal atrocities and crimes shock the conscious of mankind.

The facts in traditional form, may now be mentioned. Mahesh, Ramesh and Munnalal all the three accused are of village Nagla Chhabila, District Agra of Uttar Pradesh, Mahesh and Ramesh are brothers being sons of Sukhlal. They all three formed a team of eye surgeons under leadership of Mahesh and came for eye operations of Rajkhera, District Dholpur of Rajasthan, which is adjoining to Agra. Their operation Camp at Rajkhera was conducted between 20-3-982 to 25-3-1982. It turned out eyes grave for collecting and earning money by this most heinous reprehensible, disgraceful, conscious revolting, nerve shocking, society rocking modus operandi. Mahesh with assistance of other accused pierced pin and cut eye''s cornea with blades.

It is now on record that the modus operandi of this operation ''blinding star'' was not limited to this one solitary camp of Rajkhera only but Rajgarh ahd Malkhera Camps also witnessed the massive tragedy of the operations blinding star by these three accused.

The details of the three camps resulting in mass blinding at Malkhera, Rajgarh and Rajkhera are as under:

Village Malakheda Mahesh, Ramesh and Munna Lal. 16-2-1982 for offences 326/34 and 420/34 u/s 326/34, 3 years R.I. and Rs. 5,000/- fine; u/s 420/34, 3 years R.I. and Rs. 5,000/- fine, in default of payment of fine one year R.I.

Name of persons who were blinded:

(1) Amru, (2) Chhuttan, (3) Sukh Ram, (4) Murti, (5) Dharam Singh, (6) Pancha, (7) Ram Sahal, and (8) Mst. Mooli.

Village Rajgarh: 26-2-1982 to 3-3-1982 Mahesh convicted for offence 120B, 420, 337, 338, IPC Ramesh convicted for offences 120B, 420, 37/109. 338 and 338/109, IPC for offence u/s 420, 2 years R.I. and Rs. 1000/- fine, in default of payment of Rs. 1,000/- Four Months RI; u/s 120B, One year R.I. and Rs. 1,000/- fine in default 4 months RI; u/s 338, 2 years R.I. and Rs. 500/-in default Two months RI; 337/109, 6 months R.I. to both and Rs. 250/- fine and u/s 338/109, Six months R.I. and Rs. 250/- fine, in default one month''s R.I.

Name of persons who were blinded:

(1) Revti Devi, (2) Mst. Mooli, (3) Narain Singh, (4) Kistoor Devi, (5) Bhori Bai, (6) Laxmi, (7) Rama, (8) Girraj, (9) Mst. Birja, (10) Mangtu, (ll)Pappu, (12) Bholi, (13) Phooli Bai, and (14) Mst. Namas.

Village Rajagarh: Date of occurrence 20-3-1982 to 25-3-1982 Mahesh convicted u/s 326, 327, 420, IPC with 120B, IPC; Ramesh and Munna Lal u/s 326/34, 327/34 and 420. IPC, 120B, IPC; For each sentence 6 years R.I. and Rs. 50/- fine in default of payment of fine one day R I. All the sentences to run consecutively; for offence u/s 417 no sentence was awarded.

Name of Villagers:

(1) Ramdei, (2) Hanuman Das, (3) Moti Ram. (4) Murli, (5) Shobha Ram, (() Smt. Javitri, (7) Sunil Kumar (8) Mohni Devi, (9) Smt. Longshri. (10) Smt. Bhago, (11) Smt. Ramshri (12) Smt. Pushpa, and (13) Shyamli.

In the instant case, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur by judgment dated 23rd January, 1985 convicted the above three accused.

The judgment of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur was modified in appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur on 6-11-1985.Convictions under Sections 327, 417, 420/120B, 327/34, 417/34, 420B, IPC were set aside. However, the main conviction of the principal accused Mahesh Chandra u/s 326, IPC and other two co-accused Ramesh and Munna Lal u/s 326/34, IPC were confirmed but the sentence was reduced from 6 years to 5 years and the fine was set aside. The reduction of sentence was based on general sweeping observation that looking to the nature of the offence and circumstances of the case sentence of 5 years would be sufficient.

All the 3 accused then filed revision petition from jail against this judgment of the Addl. Sessions Judge. Since the accused were not represented by the counsel, Miss. R. Kandwal was appointed Amicus Curiae and she appeared and argued the case on behalf of the accused. On 2-2-1987 during the arguments of the revision, it was felt that the sentence against the accused is grossly inadequate looking to the seriousness of the crime. Consequently notice was issued to show cause why the sentence be not enhanced to life imprisonment. Since the accused are in Jaipur jail itself, Miss R. Kandwal the learned Counsel accepted the notice on behalf of the accused and prayed for time, so that she can consult them and take instructions and further prepare the case. On 4-2-1987 and 6-2-1987 arguments were heard on the notice of the enhancement as well as the revision and concluded.

I have carefully examined the evidence on the record and find that the trial court was justified in holding Mahesh guilty u/s 326, IFC and other two accused Ramesh and Munna Lal guilty u/s 326/34, IPC. Since I am in agreement with the findings of the trial court and no infirmity has been pointed out in the appreciation of the evidence I would not like to repeat the entire evidence as it would be avoidable exercise in futility. I, therefore, confirm the findings that the accused Mahesh Chandra, Ramesh and Munna Lal caused grievous hurt to the various victims, who have appeared as witnesses, by voluntary causing the instruments of cutting, by blades and pins by cutting the cornea of the eyes resulting in mostly total blinding except in two cases out of 13 persons, where there was partial blinding proved by Dr. Arora. In all 13 persons became the victims of this operation blinding star. Initially Rs. 21/- were charged from each and then on some pretext or the other different amounts from Rs. 50/- to 200/- were further obtained from these victims by these accused persons. After the operations were over and the victims have lost whatever eye sight they were having before these operations the accused absconded. Medical examinations were then conducted and it was found that these quacks have blinded the victims and then absconded.

Mahesh Chandra accused conducted these so called operations of eyes of Smt. Rama Devi, Hanuman Dass, Shyama, Moti Ram, Shri Murli, Shri Sobha Ram, Smt. Javitri, Sunil Kumar, Mohan Devi, Smt. Longshri, Smt. Bhago, Smt. Ramshri and Smt. Pushpa and others at Rajkheda Dharamshala.

After the revision was argued at length, I directed issue of notice for enhancement of sentence and heard the case again for the purpose of notice of enhancement also.

The learned Counsel for the accused Miss R.. Kandwal has submitted that though it is not possible to seriously challenge the conviction recorded against these accused persons, but so far as sentence is concerned, they are already undergoing sentence in three different cases & these sentences are running consecutively, and, therefore, there is no reason to enhance the sentence now, in this revision petition. She further submitted that offence cannot be more than u/s 338 IPC which is punishable only for 2 years rigorous imprisonment and conviction u/s 326 PC is misconceived and should be set aside. She also submitted that in any case the enhancement of sentence for 10 years or life imprisonment would be too severe in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Mr. S.B. Mathur, Government Advocate and Mr. Ajay Purohit, Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State have prayed that if there is one case which has come to light before this court, where maximum sentence should be awarded, it is the present one because mass blinding of persons is worst than death. A person who is made blind by such operations blinding star, every moment of his consciousness then he feels that he has been suffering worse than death. The punishment in such cases should be deterrent and exemplary as they are crimes against society of serious magnitude. Reference was made to Parasram''s judgment which was relied upon in Bachan Singh''s case for pressing Life Sentence for making it deterrent and exemplary.

Mr. Mathur relied upon the judgment of Sarjug Rai and Others Vs. The State of Bihar, & submitted that the fact that the trial of this was conducted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate cannot come as a fetter in powers of this court to enhance the sentence. According to Mr. Mathur and Mr. Purohit, the present one is a cruelty against humanity. The victims who suffeied from eye trouble and feeling handicapped already on account of minor ailment of eyes wanted full cure of eyes but these accused for lust of money added insult to injury by making them blind for ever, conducted operations with blades, pins, scissors and without knowing elementry surgery. they inflicted grevious hurt on eye which is the most tender vital part of the body, eyes of each one of the victims. The fact that they have been doing it repeatedly at different camps for money lust by inflicting the grevious hurt, without any repentence or realisation, makes their action henious, warranting maximum punishment.

I have carefully considered the rival contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant record including the judgment of the other two cases in which on similar charges, these accused persons have been punished earlier and their sentences have been confirmed by this court. Miss Kandwal has produced the judgment of Hon''ble v. Dave, J., as she represented these accused in that case.

The more and more I probe into the record of this case more and more I am convinced that the accused acted worse than chattels & animals as even animals have got some norms. Old, infirm, poor villagers without having any medical consciousness or legal consciousness were caught in the trap of these mass blinders. They did not stop after one blinding in one camp but continued mercilessly, wilfully operating the old infirm villagers to make them blind for ever. The principal accused Mahesh himself used the dangerous blade & pins by piercing into cornea of each one of victims and then putting bandage so that by the time the victim realises that the worse has happened, he would be able to escape and run away from the site.

In the Dharamshala of Rajga''rh of Alwar District earlier this modus operandi was adopted by these accused from 26-2-1982 to 3-3-1982. Again at Malkheda in Feb., 1982 similar operations were done, as per details given above.

I find that it has been conclusively proved that these accused petitioners have caused grievous hurt voluntrily by blinding the above mentioned complainants and according to the medical report atleast 14 out of them have lost their eye sight and out of them Ramadevi, Hanuman, Shyam, Gangoli. Murli, Longshri, Ramshri. Javitri and Sunil have lost their eyes completely and Moti Ram, Shobha Ram, Mohan Devi, Smt. Bhago lost the vision partially,

24 The evidence produced by the prosecution is clinching sufficeint, credible and admits of no doubt about the offence having been committed by the accused.

According to this evidence Mahesh is the principal accused who conducted these operations, by blades etc. and thereafter two companions helped him.

Even the accused have not claimed that they are either qualified doctors or surgeons or they have learnt surgery of operation by experts or training with some doctors. They do not claim to be even quacks. They have denied conducting of any operation or causing of these injuries or holding any camps or taking of money and the denial is complete. They do not even admit any atomic part of the story and thus the question of negligence only would not arise. If a qualified surgeon or other Doctor during operation is found guilty of negligence of criminal nature he may be convicted u/s 338 I PC but when one only wilfully without knowing elementary or kinder-garden surgery or qualified for nurse or first aid, deliberately with pre-plan cut and pierced the delicate organ of eye, it is wilful hurt and not negligence only. Hence the accused wanted to construct bridge on sand dunes, without any river, canal or drop of water. The fraud, hoax was all wilful and that makes it 326 and not 338 only.

In view of the above, there is no doubt that they caused wilfully, grievous hurt to the various persons.mentioned above and are guilty of Section 326 1PC.

The aggravating circumstances of this case are manifold and numerous. Firstly three persons Mahesh Ramesh and Munnalal as per the judgment produced by the learned Counsel for the accused earlier held a Camp on 16-2-1982 at Mahaval-ki-Dharamshala, Malakheda where a number of persons became victims of this offence and lost their eye sights.

They did not stop there and in their greed and lust for sheer money again held second Camp at Brahmino-ki-Dharamshala from 26-2-1982 to 3-3-1982 whereabout a dozen of persons lost their eye sights and then they came at Dharmpal Rampyari-ki-Dharamshala Rajakheda for this operation camp which turned out to be a mass blinding operation from 90-3-1982 to 25-3-1982. For this purpose they got advertisements through pamphlets and in the pamphlets they mentioned the names of renowned doctors that they would be coming for operations and gave false impression that they would be conducting operations free of charges by giving Rs. 20/- as application fee, but in fact extorted much more money in hundreds in each case.

The victims are mostly old, infirm, illiterate, ignorant, poor villagers and their ignorance and their illiteracy was exploited for committing this serious offence.

The loss of eye sight is worse than death because whereas the pain agony is only once so far as death is concerned but visually handicapped person so blinded suffers the handicap mentally, tortured throughout his life at every moment.

Whole of the family members of such victim are made to suffer serious repercussion of the handicaps for whole of life. Seals found in their possession mentions Mahesh as Dr. Mahesh Chandra Tyagi, although he does not claim to be in his statement after conducting the operations as a doctor. The unscrupulous method used of using blades or pins etc. makes it clear that they voluntarily wanted to cause the grievous hurt and there was no element of negligence and it was not a case of negligence only. In view of the above aggravating circumstances and the fact that even after three successive trials they had no repentance before the trial court and made a bare denial of every allegations shows that element of criminality is at its worst.

As per the evidence, Mahesh is the principal accused and that being so I feel that the sentence should be enhanced in his case to such a limit that it becomes exemplary and deterrent to all people so that such unscrupulous criminal realises that the majesty of law is not weak and if they play with human life by conducting mass blinding operations they would not be allowed to go scot free by small short grossly inadequate sentence of 5 years but would be punished in deterrent and exemplary manner so that the society as a whole is saved from such recurrence of such crime.

Mr. Mathur, Government Advocate assisted by Shri Ajay Purohit, Deputy Government Advocate, prayed that in the interest of society and for creating an example exemplary punishment should be given so that the majesty of law is aptly realised and made known to all people of society. I, therefore, impose the sentence of life imprisonment so far as Mahesh is concerned, but in the case of other two accused namely, Ramesh and Munnalal, the sentence is enhanced to 10 years R.I. only.

As mentioned above, the maximum sentence is being imposed for making it exemplary and deterrent because as rightly pointed out by the prosecution that there is a flood of such persons acting as quacks and conducting mass blinding operations is small villages exploiting poverty ignorance and illiteracy and unawareness of the poor villagers.

These accused persons should also pay an adequate amount, so that if possible, surgery can be done by expert and, therefore, each one of them should pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- and these Rs. 30,000/- should be paid as compensation by payment of Rs. 4,000/- to each one of the persons who have lost the eye sight.

During the discussion a few decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court were referred & it was realised that it is difficult to reconcile them in as much as in Sarjug Rai and Others Vs. The State of Bihar, the Supreme court has held that jurisdiction of the High Court in enhancement of sentence is not limited to the powers of the Magistrate in imposing the sentence in that case, who has tried the case. It was observed that the High Court can impose sentence prescribed by Indian Penal Code for a particular offence.

In Jagat Bahadur Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, while dealing with Section 323, it was held that in appeal the only sentence can be passed is which can be passed by the trial court. Similar view was taken in Shankar Kerba Jadhav and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, . It is well known that a Magistrate who is not competent to pass a sentence more than particular years can always refer the case to the Higher Court like CJM or Sessions, if he feels that the circumstances of the case require that more sentence should be passed & for that purpose Sections 323. 324 & 325 Cr. PC can be invoked depending upon the facts and circumstances of the each case. Section 28 of the Criminal Procedure Code, gives powers to the High Court to pass any sentence and that sentence should be authorised by law.

In the two judgments of Shankar Kerba Jadhav and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, and Jagat Bahadur Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, , the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court Sarjug Rai and Others Vs. The State of Bihar, was not noticed. It is unfortunate that the learned Counsel who argued the cases did not point out before the Apex Court that the earlier judgment of the Apex Court has taken a view that the High Court is competent to pass any sentence in law for an offence irrespective of the limitation of the Magistrate trying the case in this respect.

It appears that earlier there were two judgments. In Sarjug Rai and Others Vs. The State of Bihar, their Lordships have referred at page 130 the earlier judgment of Vedraj v. State of UP. in which at page 584 the following observations have been extracted:

Now though no limitation has been placed on the High Court''s power to enhance it is nevertheless a judicial act and, like all judicial acts involving an exercise of discretion, must be exercised along with well knows judicial norms.

This judgment is reported in Bed Raj Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, . Thus in Bed Raj Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, & Sarjug Rai and Others Vs. The State of Bihar, the view taken is that High Court can enhance the sentence without any limitation subject to the maximum prescribed for the offence.

The learned Counsel in the latter two judgments did not also point out the various provisions from Section 323 to 325 and others, where a Magistrate can refer the case to the CJM or the Sessions Court for giving sentence more than that he is authorised. The omission to point out this aspect is also significant.

Confronted with the above two sets of judgments which to some extent may not reconcile with each other, I am basing my decision on one set of judgments in which the power of the High Court has been held to be unlimited in this respect subject to the maximum prescribed for the offence. Sections 323, 324 & 325 IPC, further strengthen Salmond & Seervai (12th Edition P. 153) opine, such option to High Court in case of conflict of Supreme Court judgments. [Key ''J'' in Miles v. Jarvis (l983) 24 Ch D 633 and Jassel MR in Indo Swiss Time Limited Vs. Umrao and Others, and Mattulal Vs. Radhe Lal, .

The judgment of the Supreme Court in Pratap Vs. State of U.P. and Others, re-affirms the revisional powers of the High Court for enhancement of sentence suo moto, para 15 reads as under:

Whether the High Court could impose a sentence of death on the appellant when there was no appeal by the State, merely on the basis of a revision petition filed by a private party, does not give rise to any serious difficulty. u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the High Court has got ample powers and as a notice has also been issued to the appellant to show cause why his sentence should not be enhanced, there is no illegality in the sentence of death imposed on the appellant. The power u/s 439 Cr. PC is one which the High Court can exercise suo-moto and all that a person filing a revision petition under that Section does is to draw the court''s attention to an illegal, improper or incorrect finding, sentence or order of a subordinate court The fact that in this case the brother of the deceased filed revision petition and the Government did not do so does not affect the powers of the High Court under that Section. In addition, we may also refer to Section 423(I-A) of the Cr. PC.

I have also perused the relevant High Court Rules as during the arguments, it was also discussed that sitting in Single Bench I am not competent to impose the sentence of life imprisonment. The relevant rule is Rule 55, Sub-clause (VIII). This shows that the only exception is that if an appeal is to be heard from a sentence of life imprisonment or a reference to a death sentence then it can only be heard by a Division Bench, and if in a case of offence where the sentence which can be imposed is only life imprisonment or death then it could be heard by Division Bench. In other matters, the Single Bench is competent to hear and decide the case.

Consequently, exercising the powers of revision suo moto for enhancement, I have imposed the above sentence. The result of the above is that whereas the revision filed by the petitioners is rejected and the sentence is enhanced as are mentioned above. Mahesh life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, Ramesh and Munna Lal 19 years R.I. and Rs. 10,000/- fine in each case and in default of payment of fine in each case, one year RI.

The learned Counsel for the accused during the dictation of judgment pointed out that when she sent information to those accused persons who are in Central jail Jaipur about this revision and hearing of notice of enhancement they informed her that they are moving an application for withdrawal of the revision. I have asked her to check up from the Registry whether any such application has been received She has informed after check up from the Registry that no such application has been received, so far. Her information that such application is being sent may become materially irrelevant as no purpose would be served by waiting for the application and deferring the final judgment because now the accused applicants have come to know through their counsel that notice of enhancement of sentence has been given and is being considered by the court. Now they have thought it proper to move an application for withdrawal of the revision as a matter of strategy. This court cannot allow such a withdrawal application because when notice of enhancement of sentence has been given by this court and has been considered and the judgment has been dictated in open court during the last working day and today, the prayer for withdrawal would be only a strategic move to avoid the enhancement, outwit and over-reach the court.

It is the duty of social welfare State to prevent such Camps being held by such quacks pretending to be the doctors. Both the departments of Medical and Police, after earlier two camps held, should be vigilant enough to see either the qualified doctors come or it is only a mass blinding operation for collecting money. It would therefore, be necessary for all these to check either indifference or negligence of the functionaries in that area The State should provide medical aid to all these victims and if necessary, while providing medical aid if requested by the victim or his parents the State should bear the expenditure of Rs. 10,000/- in each case. The best possible surgical treatment should be provided to these victims and efforts should be made to revive their eye sights if it is possible surgically and medically.

During the course of arguments I have also noticed that such compensation was allowed by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the case of People''s Union for Democratic Rights v. State of Bihar and Ors. 1987 Cri. LR 11, where persons injured in police firing were given compensation of Rs. 20,000/- each.

Consequently the revision of accused is dismissed and the judgment is revised suo moto, in the interest of justice by enhancement of sentence Copies of this judgment be sent to DM, DJ. and CJM, Alwar, Dholpur and Chief Secretary to State of Rajasthan, for effective compliance. A copy may also be sent to Secretary & Director, Medical & Health Department. The Social Welfare Department be also informed by sending a copy.