PARVATI DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is challenging the order dated 21.2.1998 passed by the Sessions Judge, Churu whereby he has set aside the order dated 19.8.1997 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Churu. By the latter order the learned Magistrate had convicted one Roshal Lal for offence under Sec. 380 of Indian Penal Code (henceforth to be referred to as 'I.P.C.', for short) and had directed the article'of theft, namely 'Borla' (a head ornament worn by women in Rajasthan State) to the petitioner. Vide former order while setting aside the conviction of Roshal Lai, the learned Judge has directed that 'Borla' be returned to the father of the accused, Hemaram, respondent No. 2 before this Court. The battle between the parties before this Court is over a 'Borla', which was allegedly stolen from the house of the petitioner by Roshal Lai.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 13.1.1996 the S.H.O., P.S. Dudhva Khara received a written complaint from the complainant Shri Ram Chandra, who claimed that a theft occurred in the house of his brothers, Amarchand and Lalchand. According to the complainant, besides cash, certain items including a 'Borla' of 12 annas costing about Rs. 4,000.00 was stolen from the said house. Eventually, Roshal Lal was arrested and tried for offence under Sec. 380 of I.P.C. During the course of trial, in his statement under Sec. 313 of the Code, the accused pleaded that 'Borla' neither belongs to Ramkarni nor to the present petitioner. In fact his father, Hemaram, had gotten the 'Borla' made by Mohan Lal Sonar at the time of marriage of the accused himself. Therefore, the 'Borla' belongs to his family and not to the present petitioner. Vide order dated 19.8.1997, the learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced Roshan Lal for offence under Sec. 380 of I.P.C. Simultaneously, the learned Magistrate directed that the 'Borla' be returned to the petitioner as it was her stolen property. Since both the accused and his father were aggrieved by the conviction and by the returning of the 'Borla' to the petitioner, two appeals were filed by them before the Sessions Judge, Churu. In Criminal Appeal No. 31/97, the accused challenged his conviction and sentence. On the other hand, in Criminal Appeal No. 33/97, Hemaram, father of the accused, challenged the returning Of the 'Borla' to the petitioner. Vide order dated 21.2.1998, the learned Judge allowed both the appeals and acquitted the accused Roshal Lal for offence under Sec. 380 of I.P.C. and directed that the 'Borla' being the property of Hemaram and his family should be returned to him. Since the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, she has filed the present miscellaneous petition before this Court.

(3.) Mr. Chaitanya Gahlot, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that respondent No. 2, Hemaram, never appeared before the trial court and never presented an application for returning of the 'Borla' to him. It was, in fact, the petitioner who had moved an application that the 'Borla' should be returned to her as it was her property.