Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 286 (RAJ)

Bhag Chand and Krishan v. State of Rajasthan

2003-02-21

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioners against the judgment dated 19.3.1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar camp Bhadra in criminal appeal No. 32/92 by which he dismissed the appeal filed by the accused petitioners and confirmed the judgment and order dated 29.3.1991 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. First Class, Bhadra is Criminal Case No. 388/86 by which the learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced the petitioners as under : Name Conviction u/s. Sentence awarded Bhagchand 326 IPC 2 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further undergo 2 months' S.I. Bhagchand 324 IPC 1 year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to further undergo 15 days S.I. Bhagchand 447 IPC 1 month's S.I. Krishan 447 IPC Instead of sentencing the accused-Krishan, the learned Judicial Magistrate gave him benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act and also directed him to deposit a sum of Rs. 200/- as prosecution cost. It is submitted that by the same judgment and order, the learned Judicial Magistrate acquitted accused Sumitra for offence u/ss. 326, 324 and 447 IPC and also acquitted accused petitioner Krishan for offence u/ss. 326 and 324 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 6.11.1986 on Balram (PW-3) lodged an oral report (Ex.P/1) at the Police Station Bhadra alleging inter alia that accused petitioners and one Smt. Sumitra caused injuries to Balram (PW-3) and Kashi Ram (PW-1). W-3 Balram was got medically examined and he received one incised wound on left wrist and that injury was found grievous. Similarly Kashi Ram was also got medically examined and he received one grievous injury on left forearm. 3. After usual investigation, the police filed challan against the accused petitioners and Sumitra for offence u/ss. 324, 326 and 447 IPC.The charges u/ss. 324, 326 and 447 IPC were framed against the petitioners and one Sumitra and after conclusion of the trial. the learned trial Magistrate vide his judgment and order dated 29.5.1991 whale acquitting accused Sumitra for offence u/ss. 326, 324 and 417 IPC convicted the accused petitioner No. 1 Bhagchand for offence u/ss. 324, 326 and 447 IPC.The charges u/ss. 324, 326 and 447 IPC were framed against the petitioners and one Sumitra and after conclusion of the trial. the learned trial Magistrate vide his judgment and order dated 29.5.1991 whale acquitting accused Sumitra for offence u/ss. 326, 324 and 417 IPC convicted the accused petitioner No. 1 Bhagchand for offence u/ss. 326,324 and 447 IPC and sentenced him as stated above and also convicted accused petitioner No. 2 Krishna for offence u/s. 447 IPC, but instead of sentencing him gave him benefit of Section 3 of the probation of Offenders Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 29.8.1991 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Bhadra, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar camp Bhadra who by his judgment dated 19.3.1993 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners. Hence, this revision petition. 5. In this revision petition the learned counsel for the accused petitioner has not challenged findings of conviction for offence u/s. 447 IPC recorded against the accused petitioner No. 2, Krishna and the findings of conviction for offence u/ss. 324, 326 an' 447 IPC recorded against the accused petitioner No. 1 Bhagchand by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Bhadra and confirmed in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar but it has been argued on behalf of the accused petitioner No. 1 Bhagchand that looking to the fact that accused petitioner had remained in jail from 19.3.1993 to 15.5.1993 and looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and proper if the sentence awarded to the petitioner No. 1 Bhagchand 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), Bhadra and confirmed in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar camp Bhadra have not been challenged in this revision petition, therefore, this revision petition against conviction of the accused petitioner No. 1 Bhagchand for offence u/ss. 324, 326 and 447 IPC and against conviction of accused petitioner No. 2 Krishna for offence u/s. 447 IPC is liable to be dismissed. 8. 324, 326 and 447 IPC and against conviction of accused petitioner No. 2 Krishna for offence u/s. 447 IPC is liable to be dismissed. 8. However, on point of sentence, looking to the fact that accused petitioner No. 1 Bhagchand had remained in jail from 19.3.1993 to 15.5.1993 and looking to the fact that the incident took place on 6.11.1986 and more than 16 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 No. 1 Bhagchand to Jail after lapse of 16 years for offence u/ss. 326, 324 and 447 IPC and ends of justice would be met if the accused petitioner No. 1 Bhagchand is sentenced to the period already undergone by him for offence u/ss. 326, 324 and 447 IPC. However, some compensation should be awarded to the injured PW-3 Balram and PW-1 Kashi Ram. 9. Accordingly, this revision petition is disposed of in the following manner: The revision petition filed by the accused petitioner No. 2 Krishna is dismissed after confirming judgment and order dated 29.8.1991 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Bhadra and affirmed in appeal by learned Additional Sessions Judge Nohar Camp Bhadra vide judgment dated 19.3.1993. The revision petition filed by the accused petitioner No. 1 Bhag Chand against his conviction is dismissed and his conviction for offence u/ss. 324, 326 and 447 IPC recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhadra vide judgment dated 29.8.1991 and confirmed in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar camp Bhadra vide judgment 19.3.1993 is maintained. However on point of sentence, this revision petition filed by accused petitioner No. 1 Bhag Chand is partly allowed in the manner that sentence awarded to the accused petitioner by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhadra vide order dated 29.8.1991 and confirmed in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar camp Bhadra vide judgment dated 19.3.1993 for offence u/ss. 326, 324 and 447 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by him. It is further directed that accused petitioner No. 1 Bhag Chand shall pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 2000/- each to the injured PW-1 Kashi Ram and PW-3 Balram. 326, 324 and 447 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by him. It is further directed that accused petitioner No. 1 Bhag Chand shall pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 2000/- each to the injured PW-1 Kashi Ram and PW-3 Balram. For depositing the amount in the trial Court, the petitioner No. 1 Bhagchand is granted three month's time from today and on depositing the same, the same be given to PW-1 Kashi Ram and PW-3 Balram. Since the accused-petitioner No. 1-13hag Chand is on bail, he need not surrender. His bail bonds are hereby cancelled. Revision petition partly allowed. *******