Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 371 (RAJ)

Ramesh S/o Laxmi Narayan v. State of Rajasthan

2006-02-03

NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN

body2006
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Accused-appellant Ramesh son of Laxmi Narayan has filed this appeal against the judgment/order dated 13.3.2003 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Baran, in Sessions Case No.57/2000 whereby the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused appellant under Section 304-II, Indian Penal Code., to ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. 3. The learned counsel for the accused appellant contended that on the basis of evidence of the prosecution the finding recorded by the learned trial Court about conviction of the accused under Section 304-II, Indian Penal Code. is correct as from the evidence on the record it is clear that the accused also participated in the incident as he sustained injuries, therefore, in view of the matter he does not challenge the finding of the learned trial Court about conviction of the accused- appellant. However, he contended that the accused. appellant was a young person at the time of occurrence and since the date of occurrence i.e. 7.6.2000 he is in judicial custody. He contended that accused-appellant has already remained in custody for about five years and eight months whereas no minimum sentence of imprisonment is prescribed under Section 304-II, Indian Penal Code. His contention is that an accused who is found guilty under Section 304-II, Indian Penal Code., can be awarded punishment of imprisonment which may extend to ten years or with fine or both, therefore, it is not necessary to award even sentence of imprisonment under Section 304-II, Indian Penal Code. Hence, ends of justice will be met if sentence of imprisonment is reduced from ten years rigorous imprisonment to a period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused-appellant. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. B.S. Chhaba, does not seriously object to the request of the learned counsel for the accused appellant about reduction of sentence of imprisonment. 5. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the finding as well as the record of the learned trial Court. 6. There is no dispute that the accused appellant has already undergone sentence of imprisonment for about five years and eight months. 5. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the finding as well as the record of the learned trial Court. 6. There is no dispute that the accused appellant has already undergone sentence of imprisonment for about five years and eight months. After considering all the facts and circumstances and particularly the age of the accused I am satisfied that the ends of justice will be met in case the sentence of imprisonment of the accused appellant is reduced to a period of imprisonment already undergone by him. 7. Consequently, the appeal of the accused appellant is partly allowed. The conviction of the accused appellant is maintained under Section 304-II Indian Penal Code., but his sentence of imprisonment and fine is reduced to a period of imprisonment already undergone by him. The accused appellant is in custody, therefore, he may be released forthwith if his custody is not required in any other case.Appeal partly allowed. *******