Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 751 (RAJ)

Noor Majid v. State of Rajasthan

2005-03-04

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-Notice for final disposal is served on the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the appeal is being finally heard and decided at the admission stage. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 374(4) CrPC is directed against the Judgment and order dated 6.2004 passed by Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh (for short `the trial Court hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 51/2004 whereby the trial Court acquitted the accused-appellants of the offence under Section 315 IPC, however, convicted them for the offence under Section 325 IPC and sentenced them to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them during the trial and fine of Rs. 5,000/-each, in default of payment of fine they shall further undergo two months simple imprisonment. It was also directed that on deposition of fine, Rs. 5,000/-be paid as compensation to PW. 4 Fateh Bano. Aggrieved by the Judgment and order impugned, the appellants have filed the instant appeal. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the Judgment and order impugned. I have carefully gone through the record of the trial Court. 4. The appellants were put to trial for the offences under Sections 315 and 325 IPC, inter alia, alleging therein that on 14.2003, the appellants suddenly obstructed the way of complainant injured PW. 4 Fateh Bano and caused injuries to her. She was assaulted by kicks and fist blow more particularly on her abdomen resulting in miscarriage of pregnancy. She also suffered grievous injuries. 5. The prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses and produced certain documents viz. Exhibit P/1 to P/14. On appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that there is no evidence, which shows that appellants had any knowledge about the pregnancy of PW. 4 Fateh Bano and, therefore, acquitted the appellant of the offence under Section 315 IPC, however, convicted them for the offence under Section 325 IPC as noticed above. I have carefully gone through the statements of prosecution witnesses and the material available on record. 6. At the outset, learned Counsel for the appellants does not want to challenge the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 325 IPC. I have carefully gone through the statements of prosecution witnesses and the material available on record. 6. At the outset, learned Counsel for the appellants does not want to challenge the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 325 IPC. However, Counsel for the appellants submits that fine imposed by the trial Court is disproportionate to the offence alleged to have been committed by the appellants. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State supports the Judgment and order impugned. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the occurrence alleged to have been occurred on the spur of the moment and the fact that a part of fine imposed has been directed by the trial Court to be paid to victim PW . 4 Fateh Bano, in my view, the amount of fine to the extent of compensation payable to PW . 4 Fateh Bano injured witness would be just and proper in the interest of justice. 7. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. Conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 325 IPC is maintained. However, the sentence of fine imposed at the rate of Rs. 5,000/-each is reduced to Rs. 2,500/-each. On deposit of fine, the same shall be paid to complainant PW . 4 Faheh Bano as directed by the trial Court.