AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The accused-appellant Radhey Shyam earlier filed Criminal Jail Appeal through Rajasthan High Court Legal Aid Committee, which was registered as S.B. Cr. Jail Appeal No.937/2017 and later, he filed Criminal Appeal through his counsel also, which was registered as S.B. Cr. Appeal No.1609/2017. Both the appeals are directed against same judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.02.2017 passed by the Sessions Judge, Balotra in Cr. Case No.66/2013 (137/2014). Both the appeals were tagged together vide order dated 11.10.2017 passed by this Court.
These Criminal Appeals under sec.374(2) CrPC have been filed against judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 17.02.2017 passed by Sessions Judge, Balotra District Barmer in Sessions Case No.66/2013 (137/2014): State v. Radhey Shyam whereby learned trial court convicted the accused-appellant for offence under secs.498A, 323 & 324 IPC and sentenced him to undergo two years' simple imprisonment & fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 10 days' simple imprisonment for the offence under sec.498A IPC ; for offence under sec.324 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo two years' simple imprison with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further 10 days' simple imprisonment and, for offence under sec.323 IPC, the accused-appellant was sentenced to undergo one month's simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further 5 days' simple imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Briefly stated, complainant Praveen Kumar filed a complaint Ex.P11 dated 05.07.2013 at Police Station Pachpadra, stating that her sister Seema was married with Radhey Shyam. After the marriage, Radhey Shyam on ground of demand of dowry committed cruelty to her sister. Earlier also, when his demand of dowry was not fulfilled, he gave beating to her sister with iron rod and tried to pierce into her eyes. On 04.07.2017, during day time at 3:00PM Radhey Shyam came after consuming liquor and demanded dowry from her sister. On refusing, he started beating her and with intention to cause her death, he poured acid ("tejaab") on her sister, by which her sister received acid-burn injuries on her chest, eyes, mouth, stomach, hands and legs. The accused-appellant also threw acid on his daughter of 02 years age and she also received burn injuries on her hands.
When her sister cried due to burn injuries, Ashok Kumar and Datta @ Datta Ram and other neighbours came to her rescue.
When he received information and came to her sister, he found her sister in serious condition. Then he called 108 Ambulance and took her to Nahta Hospital.
After investigation, challan was filed against the accused appellant Radhey Shyam for offence under secs.498A, 323, 326A and 307 IPC before ACJM, Balotra. The case was later on committed to Sessions court for trial.
Prosecution produced 15 witnesses and documentary evidence Ex.P1 to P15 to prove prosecution story. Statement of the accused-appellant were recorded under sec.313 CrPC and after hearing arguments of both the parties, the trial court convicted the accused and sentenced him as aforesaid.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he has nothing to say on merits of the case but only contended that the accused-appellant has already undergone sentence of near about 16 months, he is the only earning member in the family and has small children and wife. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, he may be released on the sentence already undergone.
The trial court while considering on point of sentence, categorically observed that the accused-appellant had earlier also given beating to her wife, thereafter though he compromised with wife but he used to treat her wife with cruelty. It was also noticed that accused-appellant caused injuries by pouring acid on her wife and looking to gravity of offence and habitual misdeeds of accused-appellant, no probation can be allowed to him.
Thus, the trial court has already considered facts & circumstances of the case and has awarded only two years' simple imprisonment instead of three years. No further leniency is warranted in the present case. No interference by this Court is therefore required in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.02.2017 passed by the trial court. The appeals have no substance and both the appeals are dismissed.