Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Aman @ Aman Deep vs State Of Rajasthan on 2 September, 2022
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 859/2022
Aman @ Aman Deep S/o Sh. Prem Kumar, Aged About 27 Years,
W.no. 12, Chistiyan, P.s. Hanumangarh Junction, Dist.
Hanumangarh.
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar PP
Mr. Kuldeep Sharma
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment 02/09/2022
1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.p.c. have been preferred claiming the following reliefs: -
"It is, therefore, most humbly respectfully submitted that this criminal appeal filed by the humble appellant may very kindly be allowed and Judgment and sentence dated 10.06.2022, passed by learned special court Pocso act cases Hanumangarh, in session case No. 77/18 against the appellant, may very kindly be quashed and set aside".
2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant, are that on 08.06.2015, father of the girl submitted written report before SHO of Police Station Mahila Thana, Hanumangarh against the present appellant, alleging therein that the appellant, resident of Chishitya village, (Downloaded on 06/09/2022 at 09:57:49 PM) (2 of 5) [CRLAS-859/2022] for last few days prior to lodging of the complaint, started stalking his minor daughter, and also tried to molest and harass her, through mobile phone, internet etc., whereupon the father (complainant), while taking a precautionary measure, sent his daughter to his sister's house at Fazilka District, Punjab. Despite that, the appellant continuously blackmailed and tried to befriend his minor daughter. The complainant made various complaints in this regard to the Sarpanch and the parents of the appellant, but the same could not yield fruitful results.
2.1 On 07.06.2015, the complainant visited the house of appellant, to inform the appellant's father of his son's (appellant's) conduct and to rectify the same, but, in turn, the appellant, with a revengeful motive, alongwith his family members and some other persons, armed along with iron rod etc., on the same day, at around 9 o'clock in the night trespassed the complainant's house, hurled abuses at him and physically assaulted him. 2.2 On the basis of the aforementioned complaint, an FIR bearing No.122/2015 was registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Hanumangarh under Sections 452, 354-D, 323 and 143 of IPC, Section 11/12 of POCSO Act, and Section 67 of IT Act. Thereafter, upon investigation, a charge sheet against the appellant was filed under Sections 452, 354 and 354-D of IPC and Section 9/10 of POCSO Act.
2.3 Thereafter, learned court below framed the charges against appellant under Sections 452, 354, 354-D and 323 of IPC and Section 11/12 of POCSO Act. And that on 05.08.2019, the compromise between parties arrived and submitted before learned (Downloaded on 06/09/2022 at 09:57:49 PM) (3 of 5) [CRLAS-859/2022] court below, but the same was only considered only to the extent of Section 323 of IPC.
2.4. Thereafter, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and the defence of appellant, while denying the charges levelled against him, was that he was kidnapped and abducted on 07.06.2015 by Sukhdev Singh, Umed Singh, Luvjeet, Sandeep and others, apart therefrom, they physically assaulted the appellant; also an FIR bearing no. 315/2015, in connection with the said incident, was registered at Police Station, Hanumangarh under Sections 323, 325, 341, 382, 365, and 34 of IPC against the said persons.
3. Thereafter, the learned Court below, vide the impugned judgment dated 10.06.2022, acquitted the present appellant for the offence under Section 452 of IPC, granting him the benefit of doubt; also acquitted him for the offence under Section 323 IPC on the basis of the aforementioned compromise; but convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 354 and 354-D of I.P.C and Section 11/12 of POCSO Act; for the conviction under Section 354 IPC and Section 11/12 of the POCSO Act, the appellant was sentenced to under simple imprisonment for two years, alongwith a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of which, he was to undergo further one month's S.I.; in view of the conviction, under Section 354 IPC, the separate sentence under Section 354D IPC was not ordered.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that both the cases were settled by the aforementioned compromise before the learned Court below, but the learned Court below did not consider the compromise, in its true letter and spirit, and passed the (Downloaded on 06/09/2022 at 09:57:49 PM) (4 of 5) [CRLAS-859/2022] impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is unsustainable in the eye of law.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that both the parties herein are neighbors, and the dispute arose on count of quarrel between cousin brother of victim and the appellant, on some small issue, but the disputes have been resolved during the trial in the both cases; however, the learned court below on one hand, considered the compromise, but on the other hand, convicted and sentenced the appellant, as above.
6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant oppose the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and submit that the learned Court below has rightly passed the impugned judgment, after taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the evidences placed on record before it.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case.
8. This Court finds that the finding of the learned Court below in paragraph 16 of the impugned judgment dated 10.06.2022 clearly reveals an affirmation and verification of the factum of the compromise between the parties, whereupon the appellant was acquitted for the offence under Section 323 of IPC.
9. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties as well as the aforesaid order dated 10.06.2022 of the learned Court below, and applying the ratio decidendi in decision of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, the present appeal is allowed. Accordingly, while quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment dated 10.06.2022 passed by the learned (Downloaded on 06/09/2022 at 09:57:49 PM) (5 of 5) [CRLAS-859/2022] Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012), Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.77/2018 (CIS No.81/2018), only to the extent of the conviction and sentence of the appellant, the appellant is acquitted of the offences under Sections 354, 354-D of IPC and Section 11/12 of POCSO Act. The appellant is on bail in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 27.06.2022 in S.B. Suspension of Sentence (Appeal) No.521/2022); he need not surrender; his bail bonds stand discharged. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
248-/Skant/-
(Downloaded on 06/09/2022 at 09:57:49 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)