Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2552 (RAJ)

Suresh v. State of Rajasthan

2005-09-22

N.K.JAIN

body2005
Judgment N.K. Jain, J.-Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and examined the impugned Judgment s as well as record of the both are Courts below. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the conviction of the accused petitioner awarded by the trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court. However, his argument is only in respect of sentence. He further submits that maximum sentence awarded in the present case is four months simple imprisonment whereas he has already remained in Jail for about two months. Therefore, his prayer is that sentence be reduced to a period already undergone. 3. The petitioner was convicted by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3 Alwar vide Judgment dated 010.2004 as under:-“Under Section 279, IPC - two months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. Under Section 337,IPC - one month simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month simple imprisonment; Under Section 338,IPC - four months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-in default of payment of fine to further undergo two month simple imprisonment. All the sentence to run concurrently. 4. Being aggrieved with the conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal but the same has been rejected by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Alwar vide Judgment dated 29.07.2005. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the date of Judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, i.e., 29.07.2005, the petitioner is in judicial custody and looking to nature of injury sustained by the injured person and further that the case relates to the year 2001 and the petitioner has already suffered a mental agony for about more than four years, it will be just and proper to reduce the sentence to a period already undergone. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor does not seriously contest the matter so far as the order relating to sentence is concerned. 7. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor does not seriously contest the matter so far as the order relating to sentence is concerned. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and after looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case particularly that out of four months imprisonment, the petitioner has already remained in judicial custody for about two months and further that his case is four years old and the petitioner has already suffered mental agony during this period, I think it just and proper to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to a period already undergone. 8. The revision petition is accordingly partly allowed. The conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279, 337 and 338, IPC is upheld. However, the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is reduced to a period of imprisonment already undergone with a fine as awarded by both the Courts below. The petitioner may be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case. One months time is allowed to deposit the amount of fine as awarded by the trial Court to the petitioner, failing which the petitioner will have to undergo of a term of two months simple imprisonment.