Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1729 (RAJ)

Ram Avtar v. State of Rajasthan

2006-05-18

N.K.JAIN

body2006
Judgment Narender Kumar Jain, J.-Additional Sessions Judge. (Fast Track No. 1), Jaipur City, Jaipur, vide its Judgment and order dated 29.04.2005, in Sessions Case No. 104 of 2001, convicted and sentenced accused-appellants Ram Avtar S/o Nanchhu Ram and Nanchhu Ram S/o Devi Sahai, as under :Accused Under Section Sentence of Imprisonment Ram Avtar 498A, IPC To undergo three years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months additional imprisonment. 306, IPC To undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months additional rigorous imprisonment. Nanchhu Ram 498A, IPC To undergo three years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months additional imprisonment. 2. The learned trial Court ordered to run the substantive sentences concurrently. 3. Learned Counsel for the accused-appellants, Mr. B.M. Sharma, at the very outset contended that in view of the overwhelming evidence of the prosecution on the record, he does not challenge the conviction of the accused-appellant recorded by the trial Court and his only prayer is that the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial Court be reduced to a period of sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the accused-appellants. He contended that accused-appellant Ram Avtar, the husband of the deceased, has already remained in jail for about two years and seven months, whereas the accused-appellant Nanchhu Ram, the father-in-law of the deceased, has remained in jail for about six-and-half month. 4. The learned Counsel for the accused-appellants, in supports of his contentions, referred to a decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Randhir Singh & Anr. vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2004 SC 5097 , for reduction of sentence of imprisonment under Section 306 IPC, wherein the Honble Supreme Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial Court, to a period of three years imprisonment. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor defended the impugned Judgment of the learned trial Court. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant and the impugned Judgment of the learned trial Court as well as the decision cited by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant, of the Honble Apex Court in Randhir Singhs case (Supra). 7. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor defended the impugned Judgment of the learned trial Court. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant and the impugned Judgment of the learned trial Court as well as the decision cited by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant, of the Honble Apex Court in Randhir Singhs case (Supra). 7. The facts of the case are not necessary to be discussed as the learned Counsel for the accused-appellants does not challenge the order of conviction against the accused-appellant, recorded by the trial Court. The accused-appellant Ram Avatar is the husband of the deceased and he has been convicted not only under Section 498A IPC but under Section 306 IPC also, whereas the case of accused-appellant Nanchhu Ram is distinguishable as he has been convicted only for the offence under Section 498A IPC. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor does not dispute that accused Ram Avtar has already remained in jail for about two years and seven months whereas accused-appellant Nanchhu Ram has remained in jail for about six-and-half month. 9. Honble Supreme Court in Randhir Singhs case (Supra) reduced the sentence of imprisonment of the accused-persons under Section 306 IPC to three years imprisonment. 10. After considering the submissions of the learned Counsel for the accused-appellants I am of the view that the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the learned trial Court under Section 498A IPC against both the accused-appellants, be reduced to a period of sentence of imprisonment, already undergone by them. 11. So far as sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment awarded by the learned trial Court against accused appellant Ram Avtar under Section 306 IPC, is concerned, the same is reduced to a period of three years rigorous imprisonment, as done by Honble the Supreme Court in Randhir Singhs case (Supra). 12. Consequently, the appeal of both the accused-appellants is partly allowed. The convictions of accused-appellant Ram Avatar under Sections 498A and 306 IPC and accused-appellant Nanchhu Ram under Section 498-A IPC are maintained. However the sentence of accused-appellant Ram Avatar under Section 498A IPC is reduced to a period of sentence of two years and seven months imprisonment, already undergone by him and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo fifteen days additional simple imprisonment. However the sentence of accused-appellant Ram Avatar under Section 498A IPC is reduced to a period of sentence of two years and seven months imprisonment, already undergone by him and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo fifteen days additional simple imprisonment. The sentence of accused-appellant Ram Avatar under Section 306 IPC is reduced from seven years rigorous imprisonment to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo fifteen days additional rigorous imprisonment. The sentence of three years simple imprisonment of accused Nanchhu Ram awarded by the learned trial Court under Section 498A IPC, is reduced to a period of sentence of six-and-half month, already undergone by him, and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo fifteen days additional simple imprisonment. Accused-appellant Nanchhu Ram is on bail. One months time is allowed to accused-appellant Nanchhu Ram to deposit the amount of fine, in case the same has not been deposited so far. It is made clear that in case the amount of fine is not deposited by accused-appellant Nanchhu Ram, as directed above, then the learned trial Court will take appropriate steps against him. The personal bail bonds of accused-appellant Nanchhu Ram stand cancelled.