Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 707 (RAJ)

Nanu @ Narendra v. State of Rajasthan

2006-03-01

H.R.PANWAR

body2006
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-This Criminal Jail Appeal by the appellant has been received through jail challenging the Judgment and order dated 111.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Udaipur (for short, “the trial Court” hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 27/2002, whereby the trial Court convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 452, 324, 326 and 307, IPC and sentenced him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine further to undergo one months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 452, IPC; two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 324, IPC; four years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 4,000/-, in default of payment of fine further to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 326, IPC; and seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine further to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 307, IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the Judgment and order impugned, the appellant has filed the instant jail appeal. 2. I have heard learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant and the Public Prosecutor for the State. Carefully gone through the Judgment and order impugned, as also the record of the trial Court. 3. At the very out set, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant submits hat the appellant does not want to challenge his conviction for the offences noticed above; however, he confined his arguments only to the point of quantum of sentence and stated that the appellant was arrested on 16.04.2001 and since then he is undergoing the imprisonment and, therefore, he has already undergone the imprisonment for 4 years 10 months and 16 days i.e., nearly five years and, therefore, the sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the Judgment and order impugned. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. 6. On Parcna -Bayan Exhibit P-4 of PW. 5 Sukh Lal made on 25.03.2001 at the General Hospital, Udaipur a Crime Report No. 24/2001 was registered and the matter was investigated. The allegation against the appellant is that he inflicted knife injuries to PW. 6. On Parcna -Bayan Exhibit P-4 of PW. 5 Sukh Lal made on 25.03.2001 at the General Hospital, Udaipur a Crime Report No. 24/2001 was registered and the matter was investigated. The allegation against the appellant is that he inflicted knife injuries to PW. 5 Sukh Lal and PW. 6 Dhanna. On this report, the police registered the crime report under Sections 307 and 448, IPC; however, after investigation, the police filed Challan against the appellant for the offences under Sections 452, 307, 324 and 326, IPC. The prosecution adduced evidence by producing as many as 15 witnesses and the documents Exhibit P-1 to Exhibit P-20. The appellant made statement under Section 313 of the Code and denied the allegation and produced DW. 1 Nanak Chand in his defence. The trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant for the offences noticed above and accordingly, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as noticed above. 7. PW. 5 Sukh Lal and PW. 6 Dhanna are the injured persons. PW. 5 Sukh Lal stated that he, alongwith PW. 6 Dhanna, Bhagli, Khema, his brother-in-law Amra and sister, was sitting out-side his house in “Padsaal” and talking. At that time, the appellant came and he also sat there. Thereafter, the appellant started abusing. PW. 6 Dhanna made an effort to persuade him not to abuse, on which the appellant took a knife and inflicted two injuries on the abdomen of PW. 6 Dhanna. He tried to rescue Dhanna, whereupon he was also given a knife blow. Both of them were taken to the hospital and medically treated. PW. 6 Dhanna also made the similar statement. 8. It appears that the injured persons and the appellant were sitting at the house of PW. 5 Sukh Lal and while taking each other, some altercation took place between them and it is said that the appellant started abusing the injured persons, on which PW. 6 Dhanna intervened and made an effort to persuade the appellant not to abuse, upon which, on the spur of moment, the occurrence took place and it is said that the appellant inflicted knife injuries to PW. 5 Sukh Lal and PW. 6 Dhanna. Both of them were medically examined by PW. 15 Dr. G.L. Daad, as also by PW. 14 Dr. 5 Sukh Lal and PW. 6 Dhanna. Both of them were medically examined by PW. 15 Dr. G.L. Daad, as also by PW. 14 Dr. M.M. Mangal, Assistant Professor of Surgical Department, Medical College, Udaipur, who conducted operation of PW. 5 Sukh Lal alongwith Dr. Kumar Prabhu and Dr. Nanda vide operation note Exhibit P-15 and stated that PW. 6 Sukh Lal suffered abdominal injuries and there were two wounds. He also proved the operation note Exhibit P-16 of PW. 6 Dhanna. PW. 15 Dr. G.L. Daad proved the injury reports Exhibit P-17 and Exhibit P-20. 9. Thus, from the statements of the two injured eye witnesses and the medical evidence, it has been established beyond doubt that it was the appellant who inflicted knife injuries on the abdomen of PW . 5 Sukh Lal and PW . 6 Dhanna. The statement of these two eye-witnesses finds support from the statement of PW . 4 Khema, who was sitting with the appellant and the injured on the Padsaal of the house of PW . 5 Sukh Lal. Thus, on close scrutiny of the statements of the prosecution witnesses, in my view, the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 10. DW. 1 Nanak Chand stated that injured PW. 5 Sukh Lal and PW. 6 Dhanna suffered injuries by arrow. In view of the statements of the injured witnesses, corroborated by the statement of PW. 4 Khema and the medical evidence, the statement of DW. 1 Nanak Chand does not appear to be reliable and in my view, the trial Court rightly did not believe the statement of DW. 1 Nanak Chand. Thus, keeping in view the prosecution evidence discussed above, in my view, the learned Amicus Curiae rightly did not challenge the conviction of the appellant for the offences noticed above. 11. However, so far as quantum of sentence is concerned, it is more than clear from the evidence on record that while the appellant and the two injured persons, alongwith PW . 4 Khema and others, were sitting in the “Padsaal” of the house of PW . 5 Sukh Lal and talking each other, on some issue, altercations took place between them and on the spur of moment, on abusing being exchanged between the parties, the appellant inflicted knife injuries to PW . 5 Sukh Lal and PW . 6 Dhanna. 4 Khema and others, were sitting in the “Padsaal” of the house of PW . 5 Sukh Lal and talking each other, on some issue, altercations took place between them and on the spur of moment, on abusing being exchanged between the parties, the appellant inflicted knife injuries to PW . 5 Sukh Lal and PW . 6 Dhanna. Thus, the occurrence took place on spur of moment on account of some altercations and abuses. The appellant has already undergone the imprisonment for 4 years and nearly 11 months. In my opinion, keeping in view the circumstances, in which the occurrence took place, and the nature of the injuries suffered by the injured persons, the ends of justice would be met if the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him and the sentence of fine is also reduced to Rs. 500/-, Rs. 2,000/-and Rs. 3,000/- for the offences under Sections 452, 326 and 307, IPC, respectively. 12. Consequently, the jail appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of appellant Nanu alias Narendra for the offence under Sections 452, 324, 326 and 307, IPC passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 27/2002, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant and the sentence of fine for the offences under Sections 452, 326 and 307, IPC is reduced to Rs. 500/ -, Rs. 2,000/-and Rs. 3,000/-respectively. On depositing the amount of fine of Rs. 5,500/-a sum of Rs. 2,000/-will be paid to injured PW. 5 Sukh Lal and a sum of Rs. 3,500/-will be paid to injured PW. 6 Dhanna as compensation. In default of payment of fine, the appellant to undergo fifteen days imprisonment on each count. The appellant is in jail. On depositing the amount of fine, he be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.