Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1521 (RAJ)

Pappu @ Sudhir v. State of Raj.

2012-07-09

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2012
JUDGMENT Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—By filing instant criminal misc. petition the accused petitioner has challenged the impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18.8.2001 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chabra District Baran (for short `the learned appellate Court') in criminal appeal No. 30/1991 (89/92) whereby he confirmed the conviction and sentence of six month's RI and fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days RI under section 326 IPC and three months RI and Rs. 200/- fine. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo 7 days RI under Section 148 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The Judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Chabbra (for short `the learned trial court') on 7.5.1991 passed in criminal case No. 476/1980, by which he convicted and sentenced the petitioner to two years RI and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment, the accused petitioner was further directed to undergo two months' SI under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to six months' SI and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine, he was directed to further undergo six months SI under Section 148 IPC. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused petitioner submits that he is not challenging the conviction part of the accused petitioner but he is only requesting to the Court that the sentence of the accused petitioner may be reduced for the period already undergone by him in confinement. 3. He has further urged to this Court that this incident took place 30 years ago approximately from today and since then accused petitioner is facing mental agony and harassment which tantamounts to a punishment. The accused petitioner has remained in judicial lock up for a period of approx. 12 days. He has drawn attention of the Court that the accused petitioner is having his family and his children are in marriageable age. 4. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner in support of his argument has relied upon a judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Naib Singh vs. 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 u/Sec.326 of the Indian Penal Code is upheld. 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 u/Sec.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 Govt. 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 22.4.1973, 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." 5. Mr. Bhandari, has lastly urged to this Court that a lenient view should be taken in the light of the judgment cited herein above. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor has controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. In the light of the judgment rendered in the case of Naib Singh (supra) and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case I am inclined to take a lenient view in the matter and I do not think it is not a fit case where the petitioner should be sent back to Jail. 8. In the result, I maintain the order of conviction passed by the appellate court. But looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the ends of justice would be met in sentencing the accused petitioner Pappu @ Sudhir for the period already undergone by him in confinement. 9. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18.8.2001 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chabra District Baran in criminal appeal No. 30/1991 (89/92) is modified to the extent as indicated above. 10. This criminal revision is partly allowed.