HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
S.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 937 / 2017
Radheshyam S/o Madanlal, B/c Kharwal, R/o Pachpadra District
Barmer. (At Present Lodged At Central Jail, Jodhpur)
State of Rajasthan
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1609 / 2017
Radheyshyam S/o Madan Lal, By Caste Kharwal, Resident of
Pachpadra, District Barmer (Raj.) (At Present Lodged At Central
State of Rajasthan
For Appellant(s) : Mr Dilip Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr Kaushalendra Vyas, PP
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR
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
(2 of 4)
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
(3 of 4)
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.
(4 of 4)
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.
(DR. VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR), J.