Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 250 (RAJ)

Onkar v. State of Rajasthan

2003-02-17

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner against the judgment dated 16.5.1992 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara in criminal appeal No. 27/89 by which he dismissed the appeal filed by the accused petitioner and confirmed the judgment and order dated 18.7.1989 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara in Criminal Regular Case No. 213/86 by which the learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner as under: Offence Sentence Awarded 326 IPC 6 months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to further undergo 2 months' R.I. 147 IPC 3 months' R.I. 323 IPC 1 month's R.I. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. It is relevant to mention here that by the same judgment and order dated 18.7.1989, the learned trial Magistrate convicted Kana S/o Nanda, Shankar and Kana S/o Onkar for offence u/ss. 147 and 323 IPC, but instead of sentencing them, gave them benefit of Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that PW-3 Ganesh lodged an oral report at the Police Station Banswara on 28.1.1986 stating that accused petitioner acid some other persons caused injuries to him as well as to Chunni Lal, PW-2. FW-2 Chunni Lal was got medically examined and a sharp edged grievous injury was found on his leg and that injury was attributed to the present accused petitioner. 3. After usual investigation, the police filed challan against the accused petitioner and other accused persons for offences u/ss. 147, 341 and 323 IPC.The charges u/ss. 147, 323, 324 and 326 IPC were framed against the petitioner and other accused persons and after conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Magistrate vide his judgment and order dated 18.7.1989 convicted the petitioner for offence u/ss. 326, 147 and 323 IPC and sentenced him as stated above. 4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 18.7.1989 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara who by his judgment dated 16.5.1992 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Hence, this revision petition. 5. In this revision petition the learned counsel for the accused petitioner has not challenged the findings of conviction for offence u/ss. Hence, this revision petition. 5. In this revision petition the learned counsel for the accused petitioner has not challenged the findings of conviction for offence u/ss. 326, 147 and 323 IPC recorded against the accused petitioner by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara and confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Banswara but it has been argued on behalf of the accused petitioner that looking to the fact that accused petitioner had remained in jail from 16.5.1992 to 22.7.1992 and looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and proper if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. I have heard both and gone through the record of the case. 7. Since the findings of conviction recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara and confirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara have not been challenged in this revision petition, therefore, this revision petition against conviction of the accused petitioner for offence u/ss. 326, 147 and 323 IPC is liable to be dismissed. 8. However, on point of sentence, looking to the fact that accused petitioner had remained in jail from 16.5.1992 to 22.7.1992 and looking to the fact that the incident took place on 27.1.1986 and more than 17 years have passed and this period is sufficient to exhaust anybody mentally, physically and economically and looking to the fact that the accused petitioner also received some injuries in this incident as is apparent from injury report Ex.D/2, it would now not be proper to send the accused petitioner to Jail after lapse of 17 years for offence u/ss. 326, 147 and 323 IPC and ends of justice would be met if the accused petitioner is sentenced to the period already undergone by him for offence u/ss. 326, 147 and 323 IPC. However, some compensation be awarded to the injured PW-2 Chunnilal. 9. Accordingly, this revision petition is disposed of in the following manner: The revision petition filed by the accused petitioner Onkar against his conviction is dismissed and his conviction for offence u/ss. 326, 147 and 323 IPC recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara vide judgment dated 18.7.1989 and confirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara vide judgment dated 16.5.1992 is maintained. 326, 147 and 323 IPC recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara vide judgment dated 18.7.1989 and confirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara vide judgment dated 16.5.1992 is maintained. However on point of sentence, this revision petition is partly allowed in the manner that sentence awarded to the accused petitioner by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara vide order dated 18.7.1989 and confirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara vide judgment dated 16.5.1992 for offence u/ss. 326, 147 and 323 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by him. It is further directed that accused petitioner shall pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- to the injured PW-2 Chunni Lal. For depositing the amount in the trial Court, the petitioner is granted three months time from today and on depositing the same, the same be given to PW-2 Chunni Lal. Since the accused is on bail, he need-not surrender. His bail bonds are hereby cancelled. Revision petition partly allowed. *******