KANHAIYA LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment dated 21-8-2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur, whereby the learned Magistrate has convicted the petitioners for offences under Sections 342, 323/34, IPC. Although the petitioners have been convicted, they were granted the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the judgment dated 15-1-2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), No. 3, Jodhpur, whereby the learned Judge dismissed both the appeals filed by petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 and upheld the judgment dated 21-8-2010.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 15-4-2010, Narendra Kumar Chouhan, lodged a written report wherein he claimed that he, his son Rajendra, and his wife went to the house of Jasa Ram, (petitioner No. 2 before this Court), with whom their daughter is married. They went to the petitioners' house as their daughter, Sarita had called them for discussing certain family matters, as disputes had arisen between the parties. As soon as they sat down, they were assaulted by Jasa Ram and by his father Kanhaiya Lal. He further alleged that his daughter Sarita was subjected to mental and physical cruelty by her mother-in-law, Umrao, by her father-in-law Kanhaiya Lal, and by her sister-in-law, Gayatri. When his daughter was subjected to cruelty, Jasa Ram would stand outside the house in order to ensure that nobody rushed to Sarita's rescue. He further claimed that the moment he and his family members reached the petitioner's house, they were confined in a room and assaulted by Jasa Ram, Gayatri, Umrao and Kanhaiya Lal. He further alleged that Kanhaiya Lal hit his son. Consequently, his son suffered injuries on his eyes. He further alleged that due to other assaults, his son's glasses were broken. Lastly, he alleged that Jasa Ram told them that since he is working in the defence force, neither the police, nor the Court would take any action against him. On the basis of the said report, a formal FIR, FIR No. 200/2007 was registered for offences under Sections 342, 323/34, IPC. Subsequently, the charge-sheet was also filed for the same offences.

(3.) In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses and submitted six documents. Although the defence did not examine any witness, it did submit seven documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment dated 21-8-2010, the learned Magistrate convicted the petitioners as aforementioned.