Harvansh vs State of Rajasthan

Guman Mal Lodha, J.—This revision petition is directed against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Alwar upholding the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.

On Girja Prasad, Head Master. Govt. Primary School Tehadpur lodged a written FIR at Police station Vijai Mandir on 29-7-1972 alleging there in that on 28-7-1985 at 12.30 p.m when he was in the School the petitioner Harvansh entered into the class threw the chair and desk and took out Rs. 60 from the pocket of the complainant. The petitioner also alleged to have had thrown ink on the clothes of the complainant and that the accused was drunk at that time. After investigation the accused was challenged u/s 353 I.P.C. The evidence was recorded and he has been convicted for offence u/s 353, I.P.C.

Before this court when the matter came up for admission the Hon''ble Judge who has admitted the case issued notice of enhancement on the ground that the circumstances of the case were such that it requires much wore severe sentence.

However, later on this court after hearing the parties discharged the notice of enhancement and now the case has come up for consideration of the sentence imposed by the lower court. There is no doubt that the allegation of the prosecution so far as held to be proved by both the lower courts relate to the fact that Harvansh came in the school where the petitioner was teaching the boys The petitioner was the Headmaster and Harvans entered the class where the complainant was teaching and thereafter be started the misdeed mentioned above. He a first caught hold of the ear of the Headmaster and physically ousted him from his chair and then he himself sat on the chair. He threw the papers which were lying on the table and also the ink on the teacher infront of the school boys. He used force in this manner and the children were so much scared that they ran away after observing the serious offence.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge has mentioned that such a person deserves no sympathy because he has openly and publicly committed the offence against a teacher who is respected by the students and infront of the students.

The trial court also while deciding the case observed that such a person deserves no sympathy.

The learned Counsel submitted that the accused has remained in jail for about a month and therefore the sentence must be reduced to already undergone.

I have carefully examined the record of the case and rind that the findings of the both lower courts on the crucial question, deserves to be confirmed. The defence of the accused is that he was demanding some amount as price of milk and he came for that purpose. He did not mention in the statement that he came in the school and demanded the money but learned Counsel submitted at his own, that probably that was the reason why he entered the room and this incident happened.

I find that no evidence has been lead to this extent to prove this defence or it is proved from the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses.

The Accused entered the room and then infront of the school boys in a school after coming in a stage of intoxication he misbehaved and physically assaulted the teacher by catching his ear and pulling him up from the chair, and he himself sat there, in chair. This is a very serious type of offence and, therefore, I feel that it would be misplaced leneincy if he is released on the sentence already undergone more so because out of one year he has not remained in jail even for six months or so.

Consequently, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case I am not inclined to take a lenient or liberal view. The revision application is therefore, dismissed.