Laxman Singh S/o Sh. Mehtabh Singh vs State of Rajasthan

By way of these two revisions, the petitioners herein have

approached this Court for challenging the judgment dated

14.09.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1,

Udaipur, camp Mavli, District Udaipur in two separate appeals

whereby, the appellate court rejected the appeals preferred by the

petitioners herein against the judgment dated 17.01.2013 passed

by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mavli, District Udaipur in

Criminal Case No.585/2012 convicting and sentencing the

petitioners as below:

U/S 342/34 IPC - 3 months'' S.I. and a fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days'' S.I.

U/S 384/34 IPC - 1 year''s S.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1 month''s S.I.

U/S 394/34 IPC - 2 years'' S.I. and a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 2 months'' S.I. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Shri Deepak Menaria, learned counsel representing the

petitioners vehemently urged that even if the prosecution case is

admitted as such, ex-facie the offences under Sections 394 / 34

and 384 / 34 IPC are not made out against the petitioners. At best,

they can be held guilty for the offence under Section 342 / 34 IPC.

For the said offence, the petitioners have already suffered

significant period of imprisonment and thus, he implored the Court

to reduce the sentences awarded to the petitioners to the period

already undergone by them. In the alternate, Shri Menaria urged

that by way of showing humanitarian approach and to provide

solace to the injured Parasmal Jain for the injuries received by him

in the incident, the petitioners are ready to offer reasonable and

wholesome compensation of Rs.50,000/- to him and hence urged

that the revisions deserve to be partly accepted by suitably

reducing the sentences awarded to the petitioners.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioners'' counsel. He urged

that the petitioners acted brutally and inhumanly with the

complainant Parasmal. His evidence remained controverted. The

petitioners had mortgaged some ornaments with the complainant

Shri Parasmal Jain. He was passing by the petitioner Laxman

Singh''s house. Nanudas saw him and invited him into Laxman

Singh''s house with a vicious design in mind. There, he was locked

up inside a room and was assaulted by an iron window grill and

was inhumanly beaten by lathis, fists and slaps. His gold ring and

mobile were snatched away by Nanu Das and his mobile phone

was taken away and handed over to Laxman Singh. Cash amount

to the tune of Rs.150/- lying in the complainant''s pant pocket was

also looted. Thereafter, Laxman Singh threatened the injured

Parasmal with a sword and made up a story that his wife Smt.

Laxmi Kanwar had been molested and a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-

would have to be paid for compensating her. When the victim

refused to the said illegal demand, he was forced to sign three

promissory notes in the name of Laxmi Kanwar by way of

extortion. The complainant lodged a prompt report at the Police

Station Mavli as soon as he was freed from the clutches of the

accused. The allegations levelled by the complainant are duly

corroborated by his medical report (Ex.P/4) as per which, he was

found having seven bruises located all over the body. The

promissory notes which were got written by way of extortion and

the looted mobile phone were recovered at the instance of the

accused. Two competent courts have recorded concurrent findings of facts against the petitioners and as such, no leniency is called

for on the aspect of sentences awarded to them as well.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments

advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the parties and have

gone through the record.

As rightly observed by the trial court as well as the appellate

court, the allegations made by the complainant in his report and

evidence were duly corroborated by the injury report and the

photographs available on record which indicate presence of large

number of injuries on his body which seem to be inflicted after

tying him up and are indicative of custodial violence. The

complainant had given loan to the accused party who had kept

some ornaments as mortgage by way of security. He was given a

false assurance of settlement and then was locked inside the

house of the accused and was brutally assaulted. His mobile

phone was snatched away After making a false insinuation of

molesting Laxmi Kanwar, the complainant was extorted to execute

three promissory notes which were recovered at the instance of

accused Laxman Singh. The promissory notes clearly bear

signatures of the complainant Parasmal Jain.

The petitioners have been convicted by the trial court for the

offence under Sections 394 / 34 IPC for the reason that they looted

the gold ring, an amount of Rs.150/- and a mobile phone from the

complainant. Their conviction for the offence under Section

384 / 34 has been recorded for getting the promissory notes

executed forcibly. However, ex-facie the conviction of the petitioners as recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the

appellate court for the offence under Section 394 IPC is not

substantiated and corroborated by evidence of recovery because

when the complainant Parasmal was examined in the court as PW-

1, he was not made to identify the mobile and the ring allegedly

recovered at the instance of the accused. Thus, I am not satisfied

with the findings recorded by the courts below while convicting

and sentencing the accused petitioners for the offence under

Section 394 / 34 IPC. However, the remaining findings are based on

thorough and just appreciation of evidence and do not warrant

any interference whatsoever.

Thus, while accepting the revisions in part, the conviction of

the petitioners as recorded by the trial court for the offence under

Section 394 / 34 and affirmed by the appellate court is quashed

and set aside. They are acquitted of the said charge. However, the

conviction of the petitioners as recorded and affirmed by the

learned courts below for the offences under Section 384 / 34 and

342 / 34 IPC is maintained.

Learned counsel Shri Menaria has fairly offered that the

petitioners are ready to repent for their mistakes and offered

compensation of Rs.50,000/- to be paid to the complainant and in

this background, I feel that while upholding the conviction of the

petitioners for the offences under Sections 342 / 34 and 384 / 34

IPC, the sentences awarded to them by the trial court and

affirmed by the appellate court for these offences deserve to be

reduced to the period already undergone by them while suitably

enhancing the fine imposed on them so as to compensate the

complainant.

Accordingly, the instant revision is allowed in part. Whilst

partly modifying the impugned judgment dated 14.09.2017

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Udaipur,

camp Mavli, District Udaipur and the judgment dated 17.01.2013

passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mavli, District Udaipur,

the accused petitioners are acquitted from the charge under

Section 394 / 24 IPC. However, their conviction is affirmed and

maintained for the offences under Sections 384 / 34 and 342 / 34

IPC. The substantive sentences awarded to the petitioners for

these offences are reduced to the period already undergone by

them. As observed above, the fine of Rs.1,000/- awarded to each

petitioner for the offence under Section 384 / 34 IPC is enhanced to

a sum of Rs.17,000/-. In default of payment of fine, each

petitioner shall further undergo six months simple imprisonment.

The petitioners Laxman Singh (Revision No.1192/2017) and

petitioner Nanu Das (Revision No.1191/2017) are in custody. Upon

depositing the amount of fine in the trial court, they shall be

released from jail forthwith if not wanted in any other case. The

petitioner Smt. Laxmi Kanwar @ Laad Kanwar is on bail. She shall

deposit the amount of fine within a period of 15 days whereupon

her bail bonds shall stand discharged. In case, she fails to deposit

the fine amount, she shall be taken back into custody to serve out

the default sentence. From the total amount of fine, a sum of

Rs.50,000/- shall be paid to the complainant Parasmal Jain after

verifying his identity.

Record be returned to the court below.

A copy of this order be placed in each file.