1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT THAWAR SINGH AND ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN. S.B.Cr. Appeal No. 502 of 2001 under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated July 16, 2001 of Additional Sessions Judge No.2 Kishangarhbas, in Sessions Case No.95 of 1998 whereby the accused appellants Thawar Singh, Mahendra Singh, and Dhaman Singh were acquitted from the offence under section 304 B IPC and accused appellant Sarti was acquitted of the offence under section 201 IPC and accused appellant Bhoop Singh was convicted for the offence under section 304 B IPC Bhoop Singh and sentenced 10 years RI and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to suffer one year additional RI Accused appellants Thawar Singh, Mahendra Singh, Bhoop Singh, Dhaman Singh and Sarti were convicted under sections 498 A IPC and they have been sentnced to two years RI and fine of Rs. 500-500 and in default to further suffer four months additional RI. Appellants Thawar Singh, Mahendra Singh, Bhoop and Dhaman Singh were convicted under section 201 IPC and sentenced to 3 years RI and fine of Rs. 500-500 and in default to suffer further imprisonment of six months RI. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Date of Order : April 16 , 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Dr. R.K. Mathur for the appellants Mr. Pradeep Shrimal, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT : The accused appellants have filed 2 this appeal against the judgment and order dated July 16, 2001 of Additional Sessions Judge No.2 Kishangarhbas, in Sessions Case No.95 of 1998 whereby the accused appellants Thawar Singh, Mahendra Singh, and Dhaman Singh were acquitted from the offence under section 304 B IPC and accused appellant Sarti was acquitted of the offence under section 201 IPC and accused appellant Bhoop Singh was convicted for the offence under section 304 B IPC and sentenced to suffer 10 years RI and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to suffer one year additional RI . Accused appellants Thawar Singh, Mahendra Singh, Bhoop Singh, Dhaman Singh and Sarti were convicted under sections 498 A IPC and all accused appellants including appellant Bhoop Singh have been sentenced to two years RI and fine of Rs. 500-500 and in default to further suffer four months additional RI. Appellants Thawar Singh, Mahendra Singh, Bhoop Singh and Dhaman Singh were convicted under section 201 IPC and sentenced to 3 years RI and fine of Rs. 500-500 and in default to suffer further imprisonment of six months RI. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts of the case are that 3 complainant Sunder Singh filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate Mundawar for the offence under sections 498A, 304 B IPC and 201 IPC. The Judicial Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the Police Station Mundawar under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and the police station Mundawar registered the FIR No.117/96 for the offence under sections 498A, 304 Band 201 IPC. The police filed challan and the Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. On committal the trial court framed charge of offence under sections 498A, 304 B and 201 IPC against the accused appellants and they denied the same and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case examined 9 witnesses. Statements of accused were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. and in defence two witnesses were produced. The trial court after hearing both the parties, vide impugned judgment dated July 16, 2001 convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as 4 mentioned above. Against this order, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants. Accused appellants Thawar Singh, Mahender Singh . Dhaman Singh and Smt. Sarti were released on bail and their sentence was suspended vide order dated August 14, 2001. The accused appellant Bhoop Singh is in jail. Co- accused Sagraram died during the course of trial. 3. Mr. R.K. Mathur, learned counsel for the accused appellants without going into the merits of the case, and he is also not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the trial court, he submits that the accused appellant Bhoop Singh remained in custody for more than 7 years and 9 months and the incident took place on May 1, 1996 and the complaint was lodged on May 31, 1996, which is approximately one month delay, he should be released for the period already undergone by him in judicial custody. So 5 far as accused appellants Thawar Singh, Mahendra Singh, Dhaman Singh and Sarita are concerned they have been convicted under sections 498 A IPC and sentenced to two years RI and fine of Rs. 500-500 and in default to further suffer four months additional RI and further the appellants Thawar Singh, Mahendra Singh, Bhoop Singh and Dhaman Singh were convicted under section 201 IPC and sentenced to 3 years RI and fine of Rs. 500-500 and in default to suffer further imprisonment of six months RI. The accused appellant Mahendra Singh is government servant and aged about 45 years. Accused Dhaman Singh is aged about 35 years and Thanwar Singh is aged about 43 years. Mst. Sarti is aged about 60 years. This is a first offence of all the accused appellants. The accused appellants Dhaman Singh Thawar Singh, Mahendra Singh and Mst. Sarti should be given the benefit of section 360 Cr.P.c. and also benefits of sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act and further accused appellant Mahendra Singh be given the benefit of section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act as he is government servant. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor on 6 the other hand opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and stated that the court below after considering all the evidence, documents and record passed the order of conviction, and rightly sentenced the accused appellants. This impugned judgment of the trial court is just and proper and no interference is required to be called for in the impugned judgment. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record and judgment of the trial court. So far as merits of the case are concerned the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants during the course of arguments confined her argument only for the purpose of reducing the sentence of appellant Bhoop Singh to the period already undergone by him as he has served sentence of more than 7 years and 9 months in judicial lock up and other appellants should be given the benefits of Probation 7 of Offenders Act, therefore it is not necessary to discuss facts and evidence. The only point in the present case is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case the sentence of 10 years RI awarded by the trial court to appellant Bhoop should be reduced to the period already undergone by him or not. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be made if the sentence awarded to the accused appellant Bhoop Singh is reduced to the period already undergone by him, which is 7 years and 9 months. So far as other appellants Mahendra Singh, Dhaman Singh Thawar Singh and Sarita are concerned, they can be given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. Accused Mahendra Singh is a Government Servant and he can be given the benefit of section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, as his future 8 service will not be affected. 6. For these reasons the judgment of the trial court is confirmed so far as conviction of the appellants is concerned. The judgment of the trial court is modified as indicated below so far as sentence is concerned : (i) The accused appellant Bhoop Singh, who has been sentenced to 10 years RI, his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him with fine of Rs. 5,000/-. The fine should be deposited within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (ii) The accused appellants Mahendra Singh, Thanwar Singh and Smt. Sarti are ordered to be released on Probation under section 3,4 and 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act for keeping peace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years on their furnishing personal bond in the amount of Rs. 10,000 before the trial court for receiving the sentence as and 9 when directed. Accused appellant Mahendra Singh is further given the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act as this will not affect his future service. All the accused appellants will further deposit fine of Rs. 5,000/- each before the trial court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (iii) On depositing the fine by the accused appellants the same should be given to the complainant Sundersingh. (iv) The accused appellant Bhoop Singh is in Jail, he be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case. (v) The accused appellant Dhaman Singh, died during pendency of appeal, hence his appeal abated. 7. The impugned judgment of the trial court stands modified as indicated above. This appeal is partly allowed. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/