Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1218 (RAJ)

Balwant Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2006-04-18

H.R.PANWAR

body2006
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the Judgment and order dated 23.09.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Hanumangarh (for short the appellate Court hereinafter) in Criminal Appeal No.35/2005 whereby the appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the Judgment and order dated 15.03.2002 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh (for short the trial Court hereinafter) in Criminal Original Case No. 400/1992, whereby the trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offences under Sections 326, 324, 323 and 341, IPC and sentenced him to undergo two and a half years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 326, IPC one years simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 324, IPC; six months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 323, IPC and 15 days simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 341, IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The Judgment and order of the trial Court came to be affirmed by the appellate Court vide Judgment and order impugned dated 23.09.2005. Aggrieved by the Judgment s and orders impugned convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the aforesaid offences, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition. 2. At the very outset, Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not want to challenge his conviction for the offences noticed above. However, the Counsel for the petitioner has confined his arguments only to assailing the quantum of sentence and submitted that the occurrence took place on the spur of the moment in connection with water turn to the field. The dispute was that the petitioner claimed his water turn from 2.48 PM to 4.10 PM., whereas the complainant before 4.10 PM started taking water from the water turn of the petitioner, which was the cause of occurrence and on the spur of the moment, the occurrence took place and, therefore, Counsel for the petitioner submits that the sentence of imprisonment for two and a half years for the offence under Section 326, IPC may be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner has suffered the imprisonment for more than 15 months and as such he has undergone the substantial part of substantive sentence. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the Judgment s and orders impugned. He submits that the sentence awarded by both the Courts below cannot be said to be excessive. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court. 5. PW. 1 Balraj Singh is the complainant of the case. He has stated that his water turn to irrigate the field is from 2.48 PM to 4.10 PM; he alongwith his brother PW. 3 Jagraj Singh went for connecting the field with water, took his water turn from the petitioner at right time, however at that time, petitioner having a “kassi” came there and objected taking water saying that still it is his turn. He showed his watch to the petitioner saying that he took the water at right time, of which the petitioner did not agree and started assaulting him with “kassi”. At the relevant time, both the parties had shown their watches to each other, there was some differences in timings of the respective watches and it is stated that on the spur of the moment, the petitioner inflicted “kassi” blow to Balwant Singh. He suffered injuries on left homerus bone, right hand ulna bone, finger of left hand, the injuries resulted in fracture of ulna of right hand. The injuries on being examined by PW. 2 Dr. R.C. Ola, the Injury No. 1 on the right ulna was found to be grievous in nature, however, remaining injuries were simple in nature. PW. 3 Jagraj Singh, brother of PW. 1 Balraj Singh also made a similar statement. PW. 4 Dr. R.K. Gupta, the Radiologist has proved the x-ray plat and stated that there was a fracture of right ulna. Thus, from the statements of injured PW. 1 Balraj Singh and eye-witness PW. 3 Jagraj Singh, it has been established that on the dispute of timings with regard to taking water, which both the parties claimed to be their turn, the occurrence took place on the spur of the moment. There was no enmity between the parties prior to this. 6. 1 Balraj Singh and eye-witness PW. 3 Jagraj Singh, it has been established that on the dispute of timings with regard to taking water, which both the parties claimed to be their turn, the occurrence took place on the spur of the moment. There was no enmity between the parties prior to this. 6. Keeping in view the fact that the occurrence took place on the spur of the moment on the dispute of water turn, which both the parties claimed to be their turn and there was differences in the watches of both the parties, in a heat of passion, the occurrence took place. The petitioner has suffered the imprisonment during trial, appeal and revision for more than 15 months as per the record. The petitioner remained in custody from 02.06.1992 to 11.06.1992, 06.05.1994 to 03.06.1994, 11.01.2002 to 22.01.2002, 14.03.2002 to 11.09.2002 and from 08.09.2005 to till date. Thus, total period of imprisonment works out to 15 months and few days. Thus, the petitioner has already undergone a substantial part of the imprisonment i.e., for more than 15 months. 7. In G. Satyanarayan Reddy & Ors. vs. State of A.P., 1994 SCC (Cri.) 1239, the Honble Supreme Court keeping in view the fact that the occurrence in that case was of the year 1980 and the appellants therein were on bail since 1983 pursuant to the order each of them had already undergone imprisonment for a year or so, reduced the sentence awarded to the appellants therein to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them for the offence under Section 326, IPC. 8. In the instant case, the occurrence took place in the year 1992 and almost more than thirteen years have elapsed and the petitioner has undergone a substantial part of the imprisonment awarded. In my view ends of justice would be met if the substantive sentence is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner. 9. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. Conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 326, 324, 323 and 341, IPC, as also sentence of fine are maintained. However, the substantive sentence is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner. The petitioner is in jail, he be set at liberty forthwith on deposit of fine amount, if not required in any other case. Application seeking suspension of sentences being S.B. Cr. However, the substantive sentence is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner. The petitioner is in jail, he be set at liberty forthwith on deposit of fine amount, if not required in any other case. Application seeking suspension of sentences being S.B. Cr. suspension of Sentence No. 209/2005 stands disposed of .