Allowed

Madan Mohan v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC8 Sept 2016CRLA/617/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Complainant appealed against probation granted with inadequate compensation. High Court enhanced compensation liability from Rs. 100 to Rs. 20,000 per accused for serious injuries sustained during assault.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment modified to direct each accused to deposit Rs. 10,000 (Rs. 20,000 total for compensation), payable to the victim amidst remaining Rs. 10,000 for prosecution costs.

Madan Mohan Vs State and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶3

JUDGMENT

¶4

S.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL No.617/1995

¶5

Madan Mohan S/o Shri Dwarika Prasad by caste Brahmin, aged 27 years, resident of Pathak Para, Ward No.25, Hindauncity, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj).

¶6

...Complainant-appellant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1. The State of Rajasthan

¶9

2. Ballu alias Pushpendra S/o Shri Hajarilal Brahmin resident of Barpada, Hindauncity, District Sawai Madhopur.

¶10

3. Radhey Shyam @ Radhey S/o Shri Ram Ratan by caste Brahmin, resident of Chaubepara, Hindaun city, District Sawai Madhopur.

¶11

4. Ved Prakash S/o Shri Ramesh Chand, by caste Brahmin, resident of Keshavpura,Hindauncity District Sawai Madhopur.

¶12

..Respondent

¶13

Date of Judgment ::: 8.9.2016

¶14

P R E S E N T

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS

¶16

Shri Rajneesh Gupta, for complainant-appellant. Shri Meenakshi Pareek, Public Prosecutor. None present for respondents No.2 to 4.

¶17

Complainant appellant has filed this appeal against

¶18

the impugned judgment dated 13.10.1995 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hindauncity, in Sessions Case No.53/1993, whereby accused respondents were acquitted for the offences u/s 148 and 307/149 IPC and convicted u/s 324 IPC. Instead of sentencing, they were

¶19

¶20

given benefit of probation u/s 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short “the Act of 1958”). It was also ordered u/s 5 of the Act of 1958 that every accused respondents would deposit Rs.100/- in the court as cost of prosecution and compensation.

¶21

Grievance of the appellant is against granting benefit of probation to the accused respondents with a prayer for directions to pay such enhanced compensation as deemed adequate, reasonable and appropriate.

¶22

Learned counsel for the complainant appellant submits that the victim was stabbed with knife which penetrated liver. The victim appellant was initially brought to the local hospital at Hindauncity, then district hospital at Karauli and ultimately to the SMS Hospital, Jaipur where surgical operation was conducted and victim had to remain an indoor patient for 20-22 days. Accused respondents were chargesheeted u/s 148, 307 and 307/149 IPC. But after trial, they were convicted only for the offence u/s 324 IPC. Moreover, while extending the benefit of probation u/s 4 of the Act of 1958, they were directed to deposit only Rs.100/each, as cost of proceedings and compensation u/s 5 of the Act of 1958.

¶23

Learned counsel for the victim appellant has requested the indulgence for enhancement of the

¶24

¶25

compensation, appropriately.

¶26

No one is present on behalf of the accused respondents.

¶27

Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the court may pass any order as it deems appropriate.

¶28

I have given thoughtful consideration and gone through the whole material available on record.

¶29

In short, facts of the case are that on 13.10.1992 when victim appellant was changing his clothes after taking bath in a pond nearby village, accused respondents along with two others reached there and attacked him with knife and Kataar. The knife blow was given on abdomen, face and palms of the victim. As per medical report (Ex. P-6), all the three injuries were caused by sharp-edged weapon. Madan Mohan (victim) has stated before the trial court that he was brought to the Hindauncity hospital but looking to the serious condition, he was referred to Karauli hospital. From Karuali, he was taken to the SMS Hospital, Jaipur, where he was under treatment for 20-22 days, as indoor patient.

¶30

Learned trial court observed that accused respondents are granted benefit of probation under the Act of 1958 for the offence punishable u/s 324 IPC but the order passed u/s 5 of the Act of 1958, appears to be without reasoning and thoughtful consideration. Learned trial court

¶31

¶32

has even not clarified as to what amount will be given as compensation and what amount will be the costs of proceedings.

¶33

Looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, including time, energy and resources consumed on behalf of the State for conducting trial and so also in view of the nature of physical and mental agony suffered by the victim, it deems fit, reasonable and appropriate that each of the respondents be directed to deposit Rs.10,000/- out of which Rs.20,000/- be paid to the victim as compensation and rest amount of Rs.10,000/- be kept deposited as costs of the prosecution.

¶34

Therefore, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 13.10.1995 with regard to the order of costs of proceedings and compensation u/s 5 of the Act of 1958 is modified and each of the accused respondents is ordered to deposit Rs.10,000/- in the trial court, out of this amount, Rs.20,000/- will be paid to the victim appellant Madan Mohan as compensation and rest amount of Rs. 10,000/- will be

¶35

costs of the proceedings.

¶36

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

¶37

[VIJAY KUMAR VYAS], J.

¶38

CHAUHAN-

Madan Mohan v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madan Mohan v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hargovind Vs B O R Ajmer andORS

Smt Radha Thakur @ Brij Bala Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Dr Anita Malik Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Smt Phoola and Others Vs Gangaram and Others

Ramesh Chand SHARMAandORS Vs State Elementary Educationors

Saddam @ Addu Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp