SARDARA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision by petitioner Sardara who was convicted by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Doongarpur for offences under Secs. 326, 342 and 323 I.RC. and his conviction has been confirmed by learned Sessions Judge, Doongarpur. Sentences passed against him are as follows- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_45_LAWS(RAJ)11_1999_1.html</FRM>

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor at length and have gone through the record.

(3.) Briefly stated, facts of the case of that on 7.12.1996 Punjilal submitted a report to Dy. S.P. Doongarpur that on 4.12.1996 at about 12 PM. Poona Ram came to his house in order to take his son Krishna aged 18 years. Punjilal and his wife were not present as they had gone to their field to water it. They saw Poona taking away their son Krishna. When it was inquired, they told that they would come back after some time as they were going to market. It was further alleged that Poona took Krishna to his home town and at about 9.00 or 10.00 served dinner and asked him to sleep there. It was further alleged that a conspiracy was hatched according to which Suraj was brought to the house of Krishna. In the meantime Sardara armed with a lathi came to the house of Poona. He woke up Krishna and then gave beatings to him. Sardara was accompanied by his wife. He then took Krishna to his house and then at his house Sardara and his wife tried Krishna and thereafter Sardara cut the nose of Krishna with knife. Krishna was lying unconscious and when information reached to his father Punjilal he along with certain other persons reached there. Punjilal assured payment of Rs. 10.051/- in order to get his son Krishna released. Krishna then was taken to hospital at Doongarpur but the doctors refused to admit him. They advised to take Krishna to Ahmedabad. Case was registered under various sections of Indian Penal Code against some persons who were tried. But learned Magistrate while acquitting Poona and Smt. Sharda convicted the accused petitioner as stated above. He preferred the appeal but was unsuccessful.