Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1469 (RAJ)

Narain v. State of Rajasthan

2005-05-17

SATYA PRAKASH PATHAK

body2005
Judgment S.P. Pathak, J.-This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC is filed against the Judgment and order dated 19.01.1988 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No.182/85 -State vs. Narain & Anr., whereby the accused-appellants have been convicted under Section 494 IPC and sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.250/-, in default thereof to further suffer one years rigorous imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present case are that on 25.01.1985 at 3 P.M. in the noon, a written report (Exhibit P/1) was submitted by one Jeeturam in the Police Station Akola with the averments that in the night at about 3 AM while his father was asleep in the courtyard of his house and the accused after taking away his Murkiyas (ear-tops) were fleeing away, his father Dalla awoke. The accused with wooden logs caused him 5-6 injuries including one on right hand which perhaps caused fracture and on his shouting they fled away. Hearing shout, when Nagjiram, Narayan and other persons came there and saw them fleeing away. Nagjiram recognized the accused persons as Gendiya and Narayan Kanjar but could not recognize two other persons. The accused persons were chased but could not be apprehended. At the nearby place of their fleeing, on a well there being light he could clearly recognize the accused persons. 3. On this report, a case under Section 392, IPC was registered and first information report Exhibit P/2 was chalked out. At 4.30 PM on 25.01.1985, the police inspected the site and prepared memo Exhibit P/3. Dalla was medically examined on the same day at 6 PM in the evening. 9 injuries were found on his person, out of which two were lacerated wounds on the ear lobes and 7 contusions were on neck, ankle, shoulders, near right eyebrow on head and out of them two were of swelling in the size of 3 x 2” on the forearm 6 inch below ankles. Rest of the injuries were simple blunt and there was fracture of radius and ulna bones as such the injury on hand was grievous in nature. The Injury report is Exhibit P/8 and the x-ray report and x-ray plat are respectively Exhibits. 9 and P/11. Accused was arrested through arrest memo Exhibit P/7. Rest of the injuries were simple blunt and there was fracture of radius and ulna bones as such the injury on hand was grievous in nature. The Injury report is Exhibit P/8 and the x-ray report and x-ray plat are respectively Exhibits. 9 and P/11. Accused was arrested through arrest memo Exhibit P/7. In police custody, the accused gave information that the earrings were berthed in the ground at the door of his house which he can get recovered. The information report is Exhibit P/6. On the basis of this information, earrings were recovered in the presence of two motbirs Vasudev and Ambalal vide Memo Exhibit P/5 and were seized and sealed by the SHO. The earrings were identified by witnesses Dalla and Jeetu in the identification proceedings conducted by Tehsildar, Kapasan on 11.04.1985. 4. After recording statements of witnesses and usual investigation, challan was submitted in the Court of concerned Magistrate, and on committal the case came up for trial to the Court of Sessions. 5. The learned trial Court framed charges against accused-appellants under Sections 456 and 392/34 IPC. Accused denied the charges framed against them and claimed trial. 6. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 10 witnesses and tendered some documents in evidence. The accused petitioner in his statement under Section 313 CrPC denied the prosecution version and stated that they have not committed any offence nor got recovered anything. In defence, they examined DW. 1 Sajniya, DW. 2 Jagdish Chandra Soni and DW. 3 Syanibai who stated that Narain was taken in police custody and Narain and Gendiya, who were the chowkidars of the village, under the pressure of police got prepared earrings from Jagdish Chandra Soni after purchasing gold in Udaipur and that a false case was foisted against them. 7. The learned trial Court after hearing both sides, convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as stated hereinabove. 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment and order dated 19.01.1988 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No.182/85 - State vs. Narain & Anr., the present appeal was filed. 9. I have Heard learned Counsel for the accused appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor and carefully examined the material available on record. 10. 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment and order dated 19.01.1988 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No.182/85 - State vs. Narain & Anr., the present appeal was filed. 9. I have Heard learned Counsel for the accused appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor and carefully examined the material available on record. 10. It shall not be necessary for me to analyze the evidence in detail for the reason that after detailed arguments the learned Counsel for accused-appellants submitted that the alleged incident is said to have taken place in the year 1988, more than 17 years have elapsed and the accused-appellants have also suffered imprisonment for more than 7-8 months. Leaned Counsel submitted that in the interest of justice accused appellants may not be sent to jail and prayed for reduction of their sentence to the period already undergone. 11. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the Judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge. 12. I have considered the rival submissions made before me. 13. In the instant case the incident has taken place in the year 1988 and at the time when the offence is alleged to have been committed the accused-appellants were young. Nothing has been pointed out to show that the accused-appellants involved themselves in like activities after the present incident in which they have been convicted and sentenced. The accused appellants have already suffered a protracted litigation all these years. In my humble opinion, in the facts and circumstances, it would not be proper to send them in jail after such a long lapse of period. In my view, the ends of justice would meet if the Judgment of the learned trial Court is maintained and the accused are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 14. In view of above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed and while maintaining the Judgment of conviction passed against the accused-appellants, the order of sentence is modified to the extent that the sentence awarded stands reduced to the period of imprisonment suffered by them. The accused-appellants, who are on bail, need not to surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged. 15. The appeal is disposed of as indicated above.