MOTIYA & ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against judgment and order dated 24.8.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.), Jalore in Criminal Appeal No. 75/2002, affirming the judgment and order dated 10.11.1998 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (S.D.), Jalore, in Criminal Case No. 268/1998, convicting and sentencing the aCcused-petitioners as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_89_LAWS(RAJ)6_2016_1.html</FRM> All the sentences were ordered to rum concurrently.

(2.) At the outset, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the accused-petitioners do not want to press the petition questioning the legality of the order passed by the Appellate Court, affirming the order passed by the Trial Court, convicting the accused-petitioners for offences under Sections 341 and 324/34 I.P.C., but the conviction of the accused-petitioners for offence under Sec. 327/34 I.P.C. is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned Counsel submitted that the F.I.R. lodged does not contain any allegation regarding the demand of money by the accused-petitioners for organising got (party) on the occasion of Deepawali. Learned Counsel submitted the bald allegation regarding the demand of Rs. 50.00 for the purpose of got, is not substantiated by any cogent evidence on record. Learned Counsel would submit that there is no plausible explanation of record as to why the factum of demand of money being made by the accused-petitioners, was not mentioned in the written report submitted and thus, in absence of any evidence establishing the demand, the conviction of the accused under Sec. 327/34 deserves to be set aside. Learned Counsel submitted that more than 191/2 years have lapsed since the occurrence of the incident. It is submitted that at the time of occurrence the accused Motiya was 48 years of age and by now he has attained the age of 67 years. It is submitted that at the relevant time, Billaram and Gangiya were 21 and 25 years of age respectively and by now they have settled in their life. Learned Counsel submitted that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it would not be appropriate to send them behind the bars at this stage. Learned Counsel submitted that the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioners deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone. It is further submitted that the amount of fine imposed by the Trial Court may be increased as considered reasonable by this Court.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the accused-petitioners and submitted that the Courts below have concurrently found the demand of money by the accused persons stand established and therefore, there is no reason why the finding arrived at by the Courts below should be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Learned Counsel submitted that the sentence awarded by the Trial Court affirmed by the Appellate Court for the charges proved also does not warrant any interference by this Court.