Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 427 (RAJ)

Chhota Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2011-02-24

KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 05.04.1994 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge No.1, Sriganganagar Camp - Srikaranpur, in Cri.Appeal No.72/1987, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and confirmed the judgment dated 18.08.1987, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Srikaranpur by which he convicted the accused petitioners under section 326/149 IPC to 2 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-, under section 324/149 IPC to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- , under section 148 IPC a fine of Rs. 100/- and under section 323 IPC a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine of Rs. 400/- to further undergo four months rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The brief facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition is that PW/7 Mohan Lal , lodged an FIR on 22.06.1980 at Police Station , Kesarisinghpur alleging interalia that on 21.06.1980 at about 09.00PM Chhota Singh and Lal Chand were selling liquor in front of the house of the informant. The informant asked them not to do so, but they did not agree and they got annoyed. Thereafter, accused Chhota Singh, Lal Chand, Kishbore Singh , Inder Mohan and Amar Singh all came there armed with 'kasia', 'lathi', 'gandasa" etc. and Lal Chand gave a kasia blow on the foot of the informant. Lal Chand also caused a barcha blow on the head of Banta Singh. Chhota Singh caused injury on Smt.Chhoto. Amar Singh and Inder Mohan caused injuries to Rashal Singh. 3. On the basis of above report, a criminal case was registered at Police Station Kesarisinghpur and the investigation commenced. During the course of investigation, the accused petitioners were arrested and after due investigation, charge sheet was filed against five persons namely, Chhota Singh, Lal Chand, Kishore Singh , Inder Mohan and Amar Singh. 4. During the trial of the case, the prosecution examined examined as many as 10 witnesses and in defence two witnesses were got examined. After the trial the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Srikaranpur convicted all the accused petitioners as indicated above, vide his judgment dated 18.08.1987. Being aggrieved by the above judgment, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Addl. After the trial the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Srikaranpur convicted all the accused petitioners as indicated above, vide his judgment dated 18.08.1987. Being aggrieved by the above judgment, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge No.1, Sriganganagar, Camp- Srikaranpur, who vide his judgment dated 05.04.1994 dismissed the appeal and maintained the conviction. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgments, the petitioners have preferred this revision petition. 6. During the pendency of this revision petition, the counsel for the petitioner informed this Court that petitioner No.1 Amar Singh, s/o Kartar Singh has died on 23.02.2010 and a xerox copy of the Death Certificate was also enclosed with the application. The coordinate Bench of this Court, on 25.10.2010, passed the order to abate the appeal after the verification of the fact. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor stated at Bar that Amar Singh petitioner had died therefore, the appeal stands abated against petitioner No.5 Amar Singh. 8. Now I have to decide the conviction order of four petitioners, namely, Chhota Singh, Lal Chand, Kishore Singh and Inder Mohan. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the incident took place on 21.06.1980 at about 09.00 PM and the first information report was lodged on 22.06.1980 at about 01.30PM. Thus , delay was caused by the complainant in lodging the FIR. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that PW/4 Bal Dev Singh, and PW/5 Suchha Singh did not corroborate the prosecution story and the witnesses who had corroborated the prosecution story are interested witnesses therefore, their testimony cannot be believed. Further, the counsel for the accused petitioners contended that there are material contradictions in the statement of the witnesses recorded during the course of trial. 10. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently defended the judgment of the learned trial court. 11. I have perused the statement of of the witnesses recorded during the course of trial, with reference to the argument advanced by both the parties. PW/1 Banta Singh, PW/2 Rasala Singh , PW/3 Chhoto were the injured witnesses who have corroborated the prosecution story and their injuries have been further corroborated by the evidence of PW/6 Dr.Ram Lal . 11. I have perused the statement of of the witnesses recorded during the course of trial, with reference to the argument advanced by both the parties. PW/1 Banta Singh, PW/2 Rasala Singh , PW/3 Chhoto were the injured witnesses who have corroborated the prosecution story and their injuries have been further corroborated by the evidence of PW/6 Dr.Ram Lal . As per the evidence of PW/6 Dr.Ram Lal, there was grievous injury on the head of Chhoto, caused by a sharp edged weapon, which was further corroborated by the evidence of PW/9 Dr.S.L. Kaushik ,who conducted the X-ray of the head of PW/3 Chhoto. It is admitted fact that the incident took place on 21.06.1980 and FIR was lodged on 22.06.1980 at about 01.30 PM. 12. I think it cannot be said that any inordinate delay has been caused in lodging the FIR and further, simply on this ground that the witnesses were related to each other, their evidence can be disbelieved because the injuries as caused on the body of the four injured, were further corroborated by the evidence of PW/6 Dr.Ram Lal and PW/9 Dr. S.L.Kaushik. 13. I have perused the statement of all the injured witnesses. All the witnesses corroborate the evidence of each other and there are no material contradictions in the statement and even in the cross examination, the evidence could not be shattered. 14. In view of the aforementioned discussions, the order of conviction passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court does not require any interference because it cannot be said to be improper, illegal or perverse. Therefore, the order of conviction of all the four accused petitioners, is maintained. 15. Now coming to the point of sentence, the counsel for the accused petitioners contended that because the petitioners remained for about one and a half month behind the bars and the incident took place in June 1980 and about 30 years have passed since the occurrence, therefore, he prayed that the accused may be sentenced for the above offence, to the period already undergone. 16. The learned counsel for the accused petitioners relied on the following judgments in support of his argument: 1. Fatta Ram v. State of Rajasthan, RCC Feb. 1991, 71 , 2. Shankar Singh & Charan Singh v. State, RCC, October, 1986, 396 and 3. 16. The learned counsel for the accused petitioners relied on the following judgments in support of his argument: 1. Fatta Ram v. State of Rajasthan, RCC Feb. 1991, 71 , 2. Shankar Singh & Charan Singh v. State, RCC, October, 1986, 396 and 3. Damodar Prasad v. State of Rajasthan, RCC March 1989, 105 . 17. I have perused the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 18. The incident took place in June 1980 and accused petitioners were convicted in the year 1987 by the learned trial court and in the year 1994 by the learned appellate court. 19. Thus, looking to the pendency of the criminal case for about seven years, and the pendency of appeal for seven years, and further the pendency of revision petition for 16 years , in view of the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the accused petitioners, it is not desirable to send the accused back in jail after 30 years, though the accused are being convicted under section 326/149, 324/149, 148 and 323 IPC. 20. In the aforesaid back ground of various judgments of this Court as well as the Hon'ble apex court, I feel that the accused petitioners should be awarded the sentence, already undergone. However, the amount of fine should be enhanced for the offence under section 326/149 IPC from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month, for the offence under section 324/149 IPC from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month, for the offence under section 148 IPC from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month, for the offence under section 323 IPC from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month, to each accused persons.The petitioners are given three months' time to deposit the fine. In case of default of payment of fine' the trial court shall take appropriate steps as per law.Revision partly allowed. *******