SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Radheshyam vs State on 25 November, 2017

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
Connected With
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
Jail, Jodhpur)



State of Rajasthan

For Appellant(s) : Mr Dilip Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr Kaushalendra Vyas, PP

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.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation