Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2292 (RAJ)

Narayan Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2012-12-12

NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN, R.S.CHAUHAN

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. Heard finally. 2. Accused-petitioner Narayan Ram was convicted and sentenced under Section 307 Indian Penal Code to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, to two years rigorous imprisonment, by the trial Court. He preferred S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 7/1998 before this Court and this Court, vide judgment dated 9.5.2003, partly allowed the appeal and converted his conviction under Section 307 Indian Penal Code to Section 324 Indian Penal Code and reduced the sentence of imprisonment to six months, already undergone by him. 3. It appears from the record that appellant/petitioner preferred petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 21449/2012, against the judgment of this Court with regard to his conviction and sentence under the Arms Act to two years rigorous imprisonment. However, his Special Leave to Appeal was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, vide order dated 1.10.2012. 4. Complainant Roopa Ram also preferred Criminal Appeal Nos. 475-476 of 2004 before the Hon'ble Apex Court and one of his contentions was that the High Court has not dealt with the conviction of accused Narayan Ram under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Hon'ble Apex Court while dismissing the appeal observed as under: "...........We must therefore assume that the conviction of Narayan Ram has remained untouched by the High Court insofar as Section 27 of the Arms Act is concerned. The complaint therefore has absolutely no grievance as to the order of the High Court. If at all, anybody could claim a remand it would be Narayan Ram whose conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act has not been dealt with by the High Court and must therefore be held to have been maintained." 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that since this Court, while deciding the criminal appeal of appellant, did not deal with conviction in respect of offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, therefore, it would be assumed that his conviction under this offence, awarded by the trial Court, was set aside by this Court. He further submitted that since conviction of petitioner under Section 307 Indian Penal Code was converted into offence under Section 323 Indian Penal Code and he was awarded the sentence of imprisonment, already undergone by him, therefore, it should be assumed that no sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 27 of the Arms Act, was affirmed. He further submitted that since conviction of petitioner under Section 307 Indian Penal Code was converted into offence under Section 323 Indian Penal Code and he was awarded the sentence of imprisonment, already undergone by him, therefore, it should be assumed that no sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 27 of the Arms Act, was affirmed. He, therefore, submitted that since petitioner has already remained in jail for further five months, therefore, his sentence of imprisonment may now be reduced to a period of imprisonment, already undergone by him. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, contending that since matter has been finalised by the Hon'ble Apex Court and conviction of petitioner under Section 27 of the Arms Act, has been affirmed by dismissing Special Leave to Appeal of petitioner/appellant and by observations in Criminal Appeals, filed by the complainant before the Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore, there is no merit in this petition and the same may be dismissed. 7. From the judgment of this Court dated 9.5.2003, it is clear that appeal of appellant Narayan Ram was partly allowed and his conviction under Section 307 Indian Penal Code was converted into offence under Section 324 Indian Penal Code The appellant filed Special Leave to Appeal in respect of his conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act, but his Special Leave to Appeal, has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 8. Learned Counsel for petitioner has placed on record a computer copy of the order of Hon'ble Apex Court dated 1.10.2012, whereby his Special Leave to Appeal against the judgment of this Court dated 9.5.2003, has been dismissed. This copy has been downloaded through internet from the website of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the same is attested by Oath Commissioner. Learned counsel has also placed on record a copy of order of Hon'ble Apex Court dated 28.4.2011, passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 475-476 of 2004, filed by complainant Roopa Ram, where in following observations were made: "We have perused the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court and paragraph 16 thereof in particular. Admittedly the Division Bench has not alluded or dealt with the conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act. We must therefore assume that the conviction of Narayan Ram has remained untouched by the High Court insofar as section 27 of the Arms Act is concerned. Admittedly the Division Bench has not alluded or dealt with the conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act. We must therefore assume that the conviction of Narayan Ram has remained untouched by the High Court insofar as section 27 of the Arms Act is concerned. The complainant therefore and absolutely no grievance as to the order of the High Court. If at all, anybody could claim a remand it would be Narayan Ram whose conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act has not been dealt with by the High Court and must therefore, be held to have been maintained." 9. Since special Leave to appeal, preferred by the appellant against the judgment of this Court dated 9.5.2003, has been dismissed, therefore, no order can now be passed in the present petition, particularly when conviction of appellant under Section 27 of the Arms Act, has been impliedly upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court, while deciding the criminal appeals, filed by complainant Roop Ram, vide order dated 28.4.2011, operative portion of which has been reproduced above. 10. Prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code is that this Court should deal with conviction of petitioner for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Since, judgment of this Court has already been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in these circumstance, prayer made in the present petitioner under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, cannot be entertained and accepted. 11. In view of above discussion, we find no merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.Application dismissed. *******