SBCRRP877/2010 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No.877/2010 Ram Swaroop and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another Date of Order ::: 18.08.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Ripu Daman Singh Naruka, Counsel for petitioners Shri Piyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor Shri Biri Singh, Counsel for complainant-non- petitioner #### By the Court:- This revision petition has been filed by the accused-petitioners who have challenged the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar dated 20.07.2010, whereby they have been convicted for the offence under Section 500 of the IPC but have been extended the benefit of Probation; at the same time, a fine of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed on each of the accused-petitioner, which has been ordered to be paid to the complainant. The benefit of probation has been made conditional that in case the same would be extended to the petitioners only if he pays the amount of fine. Learned counsel for the petitioners SBCRRP877/2010 // 2 // argued that most of the prosecution witnesses turned hostile and that the evidence that was produced by the prosecution was not at all believed by the learned trial court and therefore by judgment dated 29.04.2010 the petitioners were acquitted. It is submitted that extra judicial confession of the petitioners and for that matter the admission made by their father could not be relied on by the learned court of Sessions to reverse the judgment of acquittal. It was argued that PW-3 Sanwar Lal has denied that any such confession was made by the petitioner or that their father had admitted their guilt. In fact the case of the petitioners is that this mischief could have been played by any member of the complainant own family. Learned counsel submitted that the prosecution failed because of some lacunae that have been left by the investigating agency. Discussion made by the learned trial court in Para 42 and 43 wherein the court noted that no effort was made by the investigating officer to get the handwriting of the petitioners and handwriting given in the press nor caused any effort to give connected the card to printing press where from card was got printed. The witnesses, who were employees SBCRRP877/2010 // 3 // of the printing press were turned hostile. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant opposed the revision petition and submitted that the petitioners deliberately made an attempt to defame Sunita Daughter of the complainant and in this connection they got a false wedding card printed indicating therein wedding of Sunita with Ramswaroop only with a view to malign the reputation and the reputation of her family whereas the marriage of Sunita was scheduled to take place with Prem on 12.12.2009. Even after such marriage 22.01.2010 the petitioners got printed by misusing the govern seal got for that the marriage card printed and therefore the complainant to take the stay filing criminal case against them. Learned counsel referred to the statements of PW-1 Gheenshalal, PW-2 Nathmal Saini, PW-3 Sanwarmal, PW-8 Ramchandra and PW-11 Madanlal to argue that all these witnesses, some of whom have otherwise been declared hostile, have clearly stated that all the four accused in panchayat admitted their guilt and this was thus confessed to their guilt and their father also apologize on their behalf. Learned counsel submitted that the SBCRRP877/2010 // 4 // appellate court has taken note of the fact that the petitioners are only students and therefore a lenient view has been taken in the matter by imposing fine on them of Rs.25,000/- on each and released them on probation and conviction has been awarded only for offence under Section 500 of the IPC. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Although it may be true that there was no sufficient evidence in so far as the offence under Sections 469 and 471 of the IPC is concerned but the learned court of Sessions in its judgment has gone into objectively to marshal the evidence to hold that the offence under Section 500 of the IPC was proved against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. This finding was recorded not only on the basis of statement of one witness but number of witnesses, namely, PW-1 Gheenshalal, PW-2 Nathmal Saini, PW-3 Sanwarmal, PW-8 Ramchandra and PW-11 Madanlal. PW-1 Gheenshalal has clearly stated that all the accused-petitioners in his presence in panchayat father of the petitioner tendered his apology on behalf of the petitioner and on that basis the first SBCRRP877/2010 // 5 // information report was not lodged till the marriage of Sunita however where again the petitioner indulged in similar mischief the FIR was to be registered. They confessed to their guilt in the panchayat but there was no written proceedings of that panchayat was maintained. It is PW-2 Nathmal Saini has also made statement to this effect. PW-3 Sanwarmal also stated that those cards were got printed by the petitioner only with a view to obstruct the marriage of Sunita. However, in the panchayat they apologize. PW-8 Ramchandra was although declared hostile but has stated that petitioners in the meeting of panchayat admitted their mistake and apologize. PW-9 Kajodmal and PW-11 Madnalal also made similar statements. In the circumstances, conviction of the petitioners in so far as the offence under Section 500 of the IPC is concerned, cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality or infirmity. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the amount of of fine of Rs.25000/- imposed on each accused, is excessive and this Court may consider reducing the said amount of find keeping in view the fact that the petitioners are student and of SBCRRP877/2010 // 6 // young age with no source of income. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the status of the petitioners and nature of delinquency, I am inclined to reduce the amount of fine from Rs.25,000/- in case of each of the petitioners to only Rs.12,500/- which amount shall be required to be paid by each of the petitioners as directed by the learned Sessions Court, Sikar and that they would be entitled to get benefit of probation only if they make such amount of fine in terms of the directions already issued by the learned court of Sessions. Conviction is maintained. The revision petition is allowed in part in the terms indicated above. Record of the trial court may be sent forthwith. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//