Partly allowed

Satya Prakash and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC1 May 2018CRLA/78/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal against conviction for cruelty under Section 498A IPC and two-year sentence, the High Court reduced the sentence to the period of judicial custody already undergone by the appellants while maintaining their conviction, noting the incident occurred 26 years prior.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to the period of custody already undergone by the accused-appellants; conviction under Section 498A IPC maintained.

Satya Prakash and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan — Matrimonial and Divorce | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.78/1994

¶3

Satya Prakash S/o Jagat Singh

¶4

Jagat Singh S/o Bansi Singh

¶5

Om Prakash S/o Jagat Singh

¶6

Smt. Susma W/o Om Prakash

¶7

All by caste Tyagi, resident of Atrada (UP)

----Appellants

Versus

State Of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Sharma for Mr. S.K. Verma

¶13

For Respondent(s) : Mr. L.R. Upadhyay, Public Prosecutor

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA JUDGMENT

¶15

01/05/2018

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application

¶17

for early hearing.

¶18

For the reasons stated in the application No.191/18 for early hearing, the application is allowed.

¶19

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally on merit.

¶20

The present appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment dated 4.2.1994 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer in Sessions Case No.24/92 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 498A I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo 2 years R.I. and to pay a fine of

¶21

(2 of 5)

¶22

[CRLA 78/1994]

¶23

Rs.2000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

¶24

Brief facts of the case are that on 2.2.1992 an FIR was lodged by the Assistant Railway Station Master, Barmer in Police Station Kotwali, Barmer wherein it is stated that a lady has been cut by throwing herself in front of Rail No.4891 Down Barmer Jodhpur Express in between Railway Station Utter Rail and Barmer. On this information an FIR No.3/92 was recorded and proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were initiated. In the initial investigation, it was found that deceased Suman, who was married with Satya Prakash and her father Saheb Lal submitted a complaint in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Barmer against all the four appellants for the offence under Sections 302, 306, 498A and 120B I.P.C. The said complaint was sent to the Police Station for the registration of case under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and a regular FIR No.39/1992 was recorded on 18.2.1992.

¶25

After due investigation, all the four appellants were arrested and challan was filed by the police for the offences under Sections 302, 306, 498A and 120B I.P.C. During the trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer the prosecution produced 18 witnesses in all and three witnesses were produced on behalf of the defence.

¶26

After hearing both the parties, the learned trial court acquitted the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 120B or 302 or 306 I.P.C., but learned trial court vide impugned judgment and order dated 4.2.1994 convicted all the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C.

¶27

(3 of 5)

¶28

[CRLA 78/1994]

¶29

and sentenced them to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2000/- each and in default of payment of fine further to undergo six months’ simple imprisonment.

¶30

The appellants being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment of learned trial court have preferred the present appeal.

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the learned trial court has committed an error of law and facts in believing the prosecution evidence in respect of cruelty and holding the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C.

¶32

It is also contended that all the allegations of cruelty was alleged to have been taken place in Atrada and Behuti (U.P.) and the Court at Barmer has no jurisdiction to try this offence there.

¶33

It is further contended that the evidence led by the prosecution in this case was most unreliable and cannot be relied upon. The learned trial court has committed an error of law and fact in believing the letters produced by the prosecution. It was not established that these letters were written by the deceased. The hand writing of the deceased was not identified by the prosecution during the trial.

¶34

In view of above arguments, learned counsel for the appellants has prayed that the present criminal appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned judgment dated 4.2.1994 may kindly be set aside and the appellants may kindly be acquitted from the aforesaid offences.

¶35

(4 of 5)

¶36

[CRLA 78/1994]

¶37

In the alternative, learned counsel for the appellants has prayed that if this Court finds that the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C., then their sentence may be reduced to already undergone as the incident was occurred on 2.2.1992 and it will not be justified to send the appellants behind the bars after a long period of 26 years. The appellants have already remained in judicial custody for about 22 months.

¶38

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment and contended that no error has been committed by the learned trial court while convicting the appellants for the aforesaid offence and the trial court has rightly passed the impugned judgment while appreciating all the material available on record.

¶39

The State of Rajasthan has neither opposed nor challenged the order of acquittal passed by the trial court to the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 306 and 120B I.P.C.

¶40

I have scanned the judgment in the light of arguments advanced and material available on record.

¶41

Adverting to quantum of sentence, it is important to observe that the offence is said to have been committed about 26 years ago and admittedly the accused-appellant No.1 Satya Prakash has remained in judicial custody for 28 days and 20 months, the accused-appellant No.3 Om Prakash and No.4 Smt. Susma have remained in judicial custody for 18 days and 18 months, sentence awarded to the accused-appellants is only two

¶42

(5 of 5)

¶43

[CRLA 78/1994]

¶44

years with fine, both the parties are relatives. As per the record, the accused-appellant No.1 Satya Prakash has remained in judicial custody for 20 months and 28 days, the accused-appellants No.3 Om Prakash and No.4 Smt. Susma have remained in judicial custody for 18 months and 18 days. The facts and circumstances pleaded by the learned counsel for the appellants and mentioned above are sufficient to observe that justice would be served if sentence is reduced to the sentence already undergone by the accused-appellants in the judicial custody.

¶45

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The sentence is reduced to the period of custody already undergone by the accused-appellants. The conviction recorded against the accused-appellants Satya Prakash, Om Prakash and Smt. Susma under Section 498A is maintained, however, the sentence of two years awarded to the accused-appellants Satya Prakash, Om Prakash and Smt. Susma for the offence under Section 498A is reduced to the period of custody already undergone by them.

¶46

Since the appellant No.2 Jagat Singh has died, the appeal on behalf of him has already been dismissed as abated by this Court on 23.9.2016.

¶47

( RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA), J.

¶48

babulal/

Satya Prakash and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satya Prakash and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan

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

Tej Singh Vs State

Bhagwat Singh Vs State

Deepa Ram Vs State

Jaswant and Anr. Vs State

Vikram Kumar Vs State

Masra Ram and Ors. Vs State