SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Satya Prakash & Ors vs State Of Rajasthan on 1 May, 2018

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.78/1994
1. Satya Prakash S/o Jagat Singh
2. Jagat Singh S/o Bansi Singh
3. Om Prakash S/o Jagat Singh
4. Smt. Susma W/o Om Prakash
All by caste Tyagi, resident of Atrada (UP)
—-Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
—-Respondent
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Sharma for Mr. S.K. Verma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. L.R. Upadhyay, Public Prosecutor
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA
JUDGMENT

01/05/2018

Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application

for early hearing.

For the reasons stated in the application No.191/18 for

early hearing, the application is allowed.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the

matter is heard finally on merit.

The present appeal has been filed by the appellants

against the judgment dated 4.2.1994 passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Barmer in Sessions Case No.24/92 whereby the

appellants have been convicted under Section 498A I.P.C. and

sentenced them to undergo 2 years R.I. and to pay a fine of
(2 of 5)
[CRLA 78/1994]

Rs.2000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further

undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

Brief facts of the case are that on 2.2.1992 an FIR was

lodged by the Assistant Railway Station Master, Barmer in Police

Station Kotwali, Barmer wherein it is stated that a lady has been

cut by throwing herself in front of Rail No.4891 Down Barmer

Jodhpur Express in between Railway Station Utter Rail and

Barmer. On this information an FIR No.3/92 was recorded and

proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were initiated. In the initial

investigation, it was found that deceased Suman, who was

married with Satya Prakash and her father Saheb Lal submitted a

complaint in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Barmer

against all the four appellants for the offence under Sections 302,

306, 498A and 120B I.P.C. The said complaint was sent to the

Police Station for the registration of case under Section 156(3)

Cr.P.C. and a regular FIR No.39/1992 was recorded on 18.2.1992.

After due investigation, all the four appellants were

arrested and challan was filed by the police for the offences under

Sections 302, 306, 498A and 120B I.P.C. During the trial before

the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer the prosecution

produced 18 witnesses in all and three witnesses were produced

on behalf of the defence.

After hearing both the parties, the learned trial court

acquitted the appellants for the offences punishable under

Sections 120B or 302 or 306 I.P.C., but learned trial court vide

impugned judgment and order dated 4.2.1994 convicted all the

appellants for the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C.

(3 of 5)
[CRLA 78/1994]

and sentenced them to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment

with fine of Rs.2000/- each and in default of payment of fine

further to undergo six months’ simple imprisonment.

The appellants being aggrieved with the aforesaid

judgment of learned trial court have preferred the present appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that

the learned trial court has committed an error of law and facts in

believing the prosecution evidence in respect of cruelty and

holding the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under

Section 498A I.P.C.

It is also contended that all the allegations of cruelty

was alleged to have been taken place in Atrada and Behuti (U.P.)

and the Court at Barmer has no jurisdiction to try this offence

there.

It is further contended that the evidence led by the

prosecution in this case was most unreliable and cannot be relied

upon. The learned trial court has committed an error of law and

fact in believing the letters produced by the prosecution. It was

not established that these letters were written by the deceased.

The hand writing of the deceased was not identified by the

prosecution during the trial.

In view of above arguments, learned counsel for the

appellants has prayed that the present criminal appeal may kindly

be allowed and the impugned judgment dated 4.2.1994 may

kindly be set aside and the appellants may kindly be acquitted

from the aforesaid offences.

(4 of 5)
[CRLA 78/1994]

In the alternative, learned counsel for the appellants

has prayed that if this Court finds that the learned trial court has

rightly convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under

Section 498A I.P.C., then their sentence may be reduced to

already undergone as the incident was occurred on 2.2.1992 and

it will not be justified to send the appellants behind the bars after

a long period of 26 years. The appellants have already remained

in judicial custody for about 22 months.

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has

supported the impugned judgment and contended that no error

has been committed by the learned trial court while convicting the

appellants for the aforesaid offence and the trial court has rightly

passed the impugned judgment while appreciating all the material

available on record.

The State of Rajasthan has neither opposed nor

challenged the order of acquittal passed by the trial court to the

appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 306

and 120B I.P.C.

I have scanned the judgment in the light of arguments

advanced and material available on record.

Adverting to quantum of sentence, it is important to

observe that the offence is said to have been committed about 26

years ago and admittedly the accused-appellant No.1 Satya

Prakash has remained in judicial custody for 28 days and 20

months, the accused-appellant No.3 Om Prakash and No.4 Smt.

Susma have remained in judicial custody for 18 days and 18

months, sentence awarded to the accused-appellants is only two
(5 of 5)
[CRLA 78/1994]

years with fine, both the parties are relatives. As per the record,

the accused-appellant No.1 Satya Prakash has remained in judicial

custody for 20 months and 28 days, the accused-appellants No.3

Om Prakash and No.4 Smt. Susma have remained in judicial

custody for 18 months and 18 days. The facts and circumstances

pleaded by the learned counsel for the appellants and mentioned

above are sufficient to observe that justice would be served if

sentence is reduced to the sentence already undergone by the

accused-appellants in the judicial custody.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The

sentence is reduced to the period of custody already undergone by

the accused-appellants. The conviction recorded against the

accused-appellants Satya Prakash, Om Prakash and Smt. Susma

under Section 498A is maintained, however, the sentence of two

years awarded to the accused-appellants Satya Prakash, Om

Prakash and Smt. Susma for the offence under Section 498A is

reduced to the period of custody already undergone by them.

Since the appellant No.2 Jagat Singh has died, the

appeal on behalf of him has already been dismissed as abated by

this Court on 23.9.2016.

( RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA), J.

babulal/

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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