SHANKER Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two accused -petitioners have come to this Court in revision petition against the order dated June 11, 1986 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Dholpur. Under the aforesaid judgment the learned Judge dismissed the appeal of each of the accused petitioners in respect of conviction as well as sentence. So far as the accused -petitioner Shanker is concerned, he was convicted Under Section 325 IPC and was sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs 200/ - or in default of payment of fine to further suffer two month's imprisonment. So far as the other accused -petitioner. Vishan Swaroop is concerned, the learned trial court convicted him under Section 325, IPC but has released him under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

(2.) I have gone through the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge as well as the learned trial court and it may be stated at the very out set that so far as the merit of the case are concerned, I find no merit in the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the accused -petitioner Shanker has also received 5 injuries as stated by Dr. Mahendra Kumar and the prosecution has not explained the injuries received by him and therefore the case of the prosecution is rendered doubtful. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge considered the argument and came to the conclusion that the injuries of the accused -petitioner were snperfluous in nature and could be self inflicted. That apart learned Counsel for the petitioner admits that in the cross case which was filed against the complainant party they have been acquitted and the acquittal was not challenged in this Court. Therefore, if the learned appellate court in the facts and circumstances of this case considered the evidence and came to the conclusion that the injuries were superfluous in nature and the view of the learned courts below could not be said to be perverse. The accused -petitioners therefore were rightly convicted under Section 325 and 323, IPC.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , the revision petition of Vishan Swaroop is dismissed and that of the accused -petitioner Shanker is partly allowed. While maintaining his conviction under Sections 325 and 323, IPC it is here by directed that he will be released on his entering a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 500/ - with one surety in the like amount to keep the peace and be of good behaviour and to appear and receive sentence during a period of one year as and when called upon to do so. It is further directed that Shanker will further pay Rs. 1,000/ -as compensation to the injured Gopali wife of Pannalal who lost her eye -sight in the right eye as a result of injury caused by the petitioner. The amount shall be deposited and the bonds shall be furnished in the trial court within a period of two months failing which the learned trial court shall take steps to recover the amount in accordance with law. In case the petitioner Shanker does not deposit the amount and furnish bonds as aforesaid he will undergo the sentence awarded to him by the trial court and the revision petition in respect of sentence shall stand dismissed.