Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1080 (RAJ)

Lal Chand v. State of Rajasthan

2009-04-21

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. - By filing instant criminal appeal petition under section 374 Cr.P.C. the accused appellant has challenged the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.06.1986 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Jhalawar (for short 'the trial court') passed in Sessions Case No. 65/1984 by which he convicted and sentenced the accused appellant for the offence under section 326 IPC for a period of two years RI and a fine of Rs. 500. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo three months RI. 2. Without going into merits of the case Mr. Rinesh Gupta, counsel appearing for the accused appellant has made a request to the Court that he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of trial court but he is only requesting to the court that the accused appellant be given the benefit of probation as per the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. and, if not, then sentence awarded to the accused applicant be reduced for the period already undergone by them in confinement. 3. He further urged to this Court that the accused appellant is 55 years of age. He has remained in judicial lock up near-about 30 days. The alleged incident has taken place on 20.04.1984 i.e. near about 25 years ago from today and since then accused appellant is facing trial, which tantamount to a punishment and mental agony. He has drawn attention of the Court that the accused appellant is having his family and his children are of marriageable age. 4. Learned Counsel for the accused appellant in support of his argument has relied upon a judgment delivered by the Apex Count in Naib Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in 1986 Cri. LJ 2061 .The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under: Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The judgment of the High Court after convicting the appellant under Section 326 of the Indian penal code is upheld. As to the sentence, we are informed that the appellant is a Teacher in a Government School. The circumstances brought out by the prosecution evidence show that he acted in the heat of the moment. Looking to the fact that the incident occurred on April 22, 1973, some 13 years back, we do not think it desirable to send the appellant back to jail. The circumstances brought out by the prosecution evidence show that he acted in the heat of the moment. Looking to the fact that the incident occurred on April 22, 1973, some 13 years back, we do not think it desirable to send the appellant back to jail. We accordingly reduce the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year awarded by the High Court to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- or in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The amount of fine shall be deposited in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First class, Muktsar within a period of one month from today. The amount, if recovered, shall be paid to the complainant Darshan Singh by way of compensation. 5. Mr. Piyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor has controverted the arguments advanced by the counsel for the accused appellant and submits that the trial Court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence after considering the statements of the prosecution witnesses as also the other material made available to him. Thus, impugned judgment dated 30.06.1986 passed by the trial Court needs no interference of this Court. 6. In view of above, I am inclined to take a lenient view in the matter and I do not think it is not (sic) a fit case where the accused appellant be sent back to Jail. 7. In the result, I maintain the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.06.1986 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Jhalawar passed in Sessions Case No. 65/1984. But looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the ends of justice would be met if the accused appellant is released for the period already undergone by him in confinement. 8. The Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.06.1986 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Jhalawar passed in Sessions Case No. 65/1984 is modified to the extent as indicated above. The accused appellant shall deposit the amount of compensation amounting to Rs. 5,000/- in the court of District and Sessions Judge, Jhalawar within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Judgment, failing which the accused appellant shall undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment. The accused appellant shall deposit the amount of compensation amounting to Rs. 5,000/- in the court of District and Sessions Judge, Jhalawar within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Judgment, failing which the accused appellant shall undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment. On deposition of such amount of compensation by the accused appellant, same shall be disbursed by the District and Sessions Judge, Jhalawar to the injured Ratan Lal forthwith. This criminal appeal is partly allowed. Appeal Allowed Dismissed. *******