Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1516 (RAJ)

Gokul v. State of Rajasthan

2009-07-01

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. - By filing instant criminal appeal under section 374 Cr.P.C., the accused appellants have challenged the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 16.5.1987 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Alwar (for short 'the trial Court') in Sessions case No. 12/1986, by which he convicted i and sentenced the accused appellants as under : 1. Gokul - U/s 326 IPC : Four years RI and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, 6 months RI. 5 U/s. 447 IPC : One month RI and a fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine, 15 days RI. 2. Ramjilal U/s 447 IPC : One month RI and a fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine, 15 days RI. U/s. 324 IPC : Given probation 3. Mota - U/s 447 IPC: One month RI and a fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine, 15 days RI. U/s 323 IPC : Given probation. Sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The appellants Mota and Ramjilal were further directed to deposit Rs. 1,0001- and Rs. 1,500/- each to the injured persons namely; Dhaniram and Jagdish. 3. Without going into merits of the case counsel appearing for the accused appellants has made a request to the Court that he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the trial Court in regard to accused appellants but he is only requesting to the Court that the sentence awarded to the accused appellants be reduced for the period already undergone by them in confinement. 4. He further urged to this Court that the accused appellant Gokul has remained in judicial lock up near-about 11 days and remaining two accused appellants namely Ramjilal and Motya (Mota) have remained in judicial lock up for 6 days. The incident took place on 26.9.1985i.e. more than 23 years ago from today and since then accused appellants are facing trial, which tantamounts to a punishment and mental agony. He has drawn attention of the Court that the accused appellants are having their family and their children are in marriageable age. 5. Learned counsel for the accused appellants in support of his argument has relied upon a judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Naib Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in 1986 Cr. L.J. 2061 . He has drawn attention of the Court that the accused appellants are having their family and their children are in marriageable age. 5. Learned counsel for the accused appellants in support of his argument has relied upon a judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Naib Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in 1986 Cr. L.J. 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 inclined to take a lenient view. 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. 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. Appeal dismissed." 6. Counsel for the accused appellants has lastly urged to this Court that a lenient view be taken in the light of the judgment cited herein above. 7. Mr. Pradeep Shreemal, Public Prosecutor for the State controverted the afore-mentioned submissions and submits that the trial Court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence after considering all the material made available to him. Thus, impugned judgment of the trial Court is just and proper and need no interference of this Court. 8. In view of above, I am inclined to take a lenient view in the matter and I do not think it is not a fit case where the accused appellants be sent back to Jail. 9. In the result, I maintain the Judgment of conviction dated 16.5.1987 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Alwar in Sessions Case No. 12/86. In view of above, I am inclined to take a lenient view in the matter and I do not think it is not a fit case where the accused appellants be sent back to Jail. 9. In the result, I maintain the Judgment of conviction dated 16.5.1987 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Alwar in Sessions Case No. 12/86. But looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the ends of justice would be met if the accused appellants are released for the period already undergone by them in confinement. Rest part of the Judgment of the trial Court is maintained. The accused appellants are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. They need not to surrender before the trial Court, if not required in any other case. 10. The Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 16.5.1987 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Alwar in Sessions Case No. 12/86 is modified to the extent as indicated above.This criminal appeal is partly allowed.Appeal Partly ALlowed. *******