Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 260 (RAJ)

Roopa Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2003-02-18

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed by the accused-petitioner-Roopa Ram against the judgment dated 15.12.1992 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) cum Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Criminal Appeal No. 10/90 by which he dismissed the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner and confirmed the judgment and order dated 7.4.1986 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nokha in Criminal Case No. 269/81 by which the learned Magistrate while acquitting the accused-petitioner for offence u/s. 324 IPC convicted the petitioner for offence u/s. 326 IPC and sentenced him to 1 and 1/2 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further undergo 6 months' S.I. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 29.10.1981, near Bus Stand, Nokha, the accused-petitioner caused two injuries to Ramchandra (PW- 1) including one fracture on left leg which was found to be grievous one. 3. After usual investigation, the police filed challan against the accused- petitioner for offence u/ss. 324 & 326 IPC.The charges u/ss. 324 & 326 IPC were framed against the petitioner and after conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Magistrate vide his judgment and order dated 7.4.1986 while acquitting the accused-petitioner for offence u/s. 324 IPC convicted him for offence u/s. 326 IPC and sentenced him as stated above. 4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 7.4.1986 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Nokha, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner which was transferred to the Court of Special Judge, SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities)-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner who by his judgment dated 15.12.1992 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Hence, this revision petition. 5. 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/s. 326, IPC recorded against the accused-petitioner by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Nokha and confirmed in appeal by the learned Special Judge, SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities)-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner but it has been argued on behalf of the accused-petitioner that looking to the fact that accused-petitioner had remained in jail from 12.11.1981 to 17.11.1981 and from 15.12.1992 to 21.1.1993 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 Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Nokha and confirmed in appeal by the learned Special Judge, SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities)-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner have not been challenged in this revision petition, therefore, this revision petition against conviction of the accused-petitioner for offence u/s. 326 IPC is liable to be dismissed. 8. However, on point of sentence, looking to the fact that accused-petitioner had remained in jail from 12.11.1981 to 17.11.1981 and from 15.12.1992 to 21.1.1993 and looking to the fact that the incident took place on 29.10.1981 and more than 21 years have passed and this period is sufficient to exhaust anybody mentally, physically and economically, it would now not be proper to send the accused-petitioner to Jail after lapse of 21 years for offence u/s. 326 IPC and ends of justice would be met if the accused-petitioner is sentenced to the period already undergone by him for offence u/s. 326 IPC. However, some compensation should be awarded to the injured Ramchandra (PW-1). 9. Accordingly, this revision petition is disposed of in the following manner: The revision petition filed by the accused-petitioner against the conviction is dismissed and his conviction for offence u/s. 326 IPC recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nokha vide judgment dated 7.4.1986 and confirmed in appeal by the learned Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities)-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner vide judgment dated 15.12.1992 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 Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nokha vide order dated 7.4.1986 and confirmed in appeal by the learned Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) cum Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner vide judgment dated 15.12.1992 for offence u/s. 326 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- 1 Ram Chandra. 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-1 Ram Chandra.Since the accused is on bail, he need not surrender. His bail bonds are hereby cancelled.Revision partly allowed. *******