MEHTAB SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-Mehtab Singh has been convicted for the offence under Secs. 451, 336 and 404 Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced for these offences to various terms and of rigorous imprisonment to run concurrently and for the offence under Sec. 451 Indian Penal Code, he has also been imposed a fine of Rs. 500.00.

(2.) The facts borne out are that the petitioner who was Rakshak in Railway Protection Force, was under suspension on account of two criminal cases pending against him regarding theft of railway steam coal, K.M. Shah, PW 1, was the Asstt. Security Officer and was residing the Railway Bungalow No. 421 located at Beawar Road, Ajmer. On 3rd March, 1978, K.M. Shah was sitting with his family members in a room of his residential bungalow'. At about 8.45 p.m., the petitioner entered the compound of the bungalow and knocked the do others of the room where K.M.Shah was sitting and he started abusing K.M.Shah and asked him that he should be taken back on immediately otherwise he would kill Mr. K.M.Shah and set-fire to the bungalow. It was further alleged that the petitioner started throwing stones in the bungalow. Shri Shah called for the help by telephone to the staff and C and W workshop. The staff members came and the petitioner was taken to Police Station. Shri K.M.Shah lodged an FIR Ex. P.l whereupon a case was registered against the petitioner and after investigation a charge-sheet was filed and after trial the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid by the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Ajmer. The petitioner filed an appeal but the same was dismissed by the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Ajmer by Judgment dated 22nd Aug., 1989 against which the present revision petition has been filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the case of the prosecution that the petitioner threw stones in the bungalow of Shri K.M.Shah, is not established. He pointed out that in the site-plan prepared by the Investigating Officer Ex. P.3, it is nowhere mentioned that there were any stones lying outside the bungalow or inside the bungalow. He has also submitted that had the petitioner thrown any stones, some injury must have resulted to the body of Shri K.M.Shah and his family members and some damage must have been caused to the doors and windows of the bungalow but there was nothing of that sort. The learned counsel also urged that the petitioner was under suspension and was in financial crisis. In that back ground he went to the bungalow of Shri K.M.Shah and only requested him to take him on duty. According to the learned counsel, no offence was made out against the petitioner. In the alternative, he urged that in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner should have been given benefit of probation.