- (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Alwar upholding the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.
(2.) ON Girja Prasad, Head Master, Govt. Primary School Tehadpur lodged a written F. I. R. at Police Station Vijai Mandir on 29. 7. 1972 alleging therein that on 28. 7. 1985 at 12. 30 A. M. when he was in the School the petitioner Harvansh entered into the class threw the chair and desk and took out Rs. 60 from the pocket of the complainant. The petitioner also alleged to have had thrown ink on the clothes of the complainant and that the accused was drunkn at that time. After investigation the accused was challaned under Section 353 J. P. C. The evidence was recorded and he has been convicted for offence under Section 353 I. P. C. Before this court when the matter came up for admission the Hon'ble Judge who has admitted the case issue notice of enhancement on the ground that the circumstances of the case were such that it requires much more severe sentences. However, later on this court after hearing the parties discharged the notice of enhancement and now the case has come up for consideration of the sentence imposed by the lower court. There is no doubt that the allegation of the prosecution so far as held to be proved by both the lower courts relate to the fact that Harvansh came in the school where the petitioner was teaching the boys. The petitioner was the Headmaster and Harvansh entered the class where the complainant was teaching and there after he started the misdeed mentioned above. He first caught hold of the ear of the Head master and physically ousted him from his chair and then he himself set on the chair. He threw the papers which were lying on the table and also the ink on the teacher in front of the school boys. He used force in this manner and the children were so much scared that they ran away after observing this serious offence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has mentioned that such a person deserves no sympathy because he has openly and publicly committed the offence against a teacher who is respected by the students and infront of the students. The trial court also while deciding the case observed that such a person deserves no sympathy.
(3.) THE learned counsel submitted that the accused has remained in Jail for about a month and, therefore, the sentence must be reduced to already undergone. I have carefully examined the record of the case and find that the findings of both the lower courts on the crucial question, deserves to be confirmed. The defence of the accused is that he was demanding some amount as price of milk and he came for that purpose. He did not mention in the statement that he came in the school and demanded the money but learned counsel submitted at his own, that probably this was the reason why he entered the room and this incident happened. I find that no evidence has been lead to this extent to prove this defence nor it is proved from the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. ;