Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1261 (RAJ)

Bhagwan v. State of Rajasthan

2013-07-11

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2013
JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment dated 19-9-1989 passed by Sessions Judge, Alwar in Sessions Case No. 74/1987 whereby the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as under : Accused appellants Bhagwan, Chhotkya alias Chhoteylal, Kaluram and Ramhet : Convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part 2 readwith 34, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 4 years R.I. with fine of Rs.500/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months RI Accused appellants Chhotkya, Kaluram and Ramhet : Convicted for the offence under Section 323, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 6 months SI. Accused appellant Bhagwan Convicted for the offence under Section 324, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 1 year RI. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under :- “On 1-3-1987, a report was lodged by one Kajodmal at Police Station, Rajgarh. On the basis of said report, the police registered a case for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 147, 323, I.P.C. After investigation, the police submitted a challan against the appellants and co-accused Narayan before the Court concerned, who has committed the case for trial before the trial Court. The trial Court has framed charges against the accused appellants, who denied for the same and claimed for trial. Thereafter the prosecution has submitted the witnesses and produced some documents. The statement of accused appellants were recorded under Section 313, Cr. P.C. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court has acquitted the co-accused Narayan while convicted the accused appellants vide his judgment dated 19-9-1989, as indicated above. 3. Against the said judgment dated 19-9-1989, this appeal had been preferred by the accused appellants. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that accused appellant Chhotkya alias Chhoteylal has died, as such his appeal has become abated and the same may be dismissed as such. 5. 3. Against the said judgment dated 19-9-1989, this appeal had been preferred by the accused appellants. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that accused appellant Chhotkya alias Chhoteylal has died, as such his appeal has become abated and the same may be dismissed as such. 5. So far as the appeal filed on behalf of accused appellants Bhagwan, Kaluram and Ramhet is concerned, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the court below, but he is only requesting to this Court that looking to the fact that matter is related to 26 years ago from today; they are not the habitual offenders; they belong to a respectable family; the accused appellant Bhagwan has remained in confinement for about 1 year, 6 months and 14 days; accused appellant Kaluram has remained in confinement for about 1 years; 10 months and 25 days; and accused appellant Ramhet has remained in confinement for about 9 months and 28 days, they are basically farmers and they are in olden days of their life, hence either they should be given the benefit of probation and if not, then they should be released for the period already undergone by them in confinement, as indicated hereinabove. 6. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Gulab Das and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2011) 10 SCC 765 : ( AIR 2012 SC 888 ). He has further placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Rajendra Harakchand Bhandari and others v. State of Maharashtra and another ( AIR 2011 SC 1821 ). The appeal court in the case of Rajendra Harakchand Bhandari (supra), in para 16, observed as under : 16. We must immediately state that the offence under Section 307 is not compoundable in terms of Section 320(9) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and, therefore, compounding of the offence in the present case is out of question. However, the circumstances pointed out by the learned senior counsel do persuade us for a lenient view in regard to the sentence. The incident occurred on May 17, 1991 and it is almost twenty years since then. The appellants are agriculturists by occupation and have no previous criminal background. However, the circumstances pointed out by the learned senior counsel do persuade us for a lenient view in regard to the sentence. The incident occurred on May 17, 1991 and it is almost twenty years since then. The appellants are agriculturists by occupation and have no previous criminal background. There has been reconciliation amongst parties; the relations between the appellants and the victim have become cordial and prior to the appellants surrender, the parties have been living peacefully in the village. The appellants have already undergone the sentence of more than two and a half years. Having regard to these circumstances, we are satisfied that ends of justice will be met if the substantive sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone while maintaining the amount of fine. 7. Learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants as well as the aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, I do not think it proper to release the accused appellants on probation, but in my view, ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them in confinement, as indicated hereinabove. Hence, this appeal is disposed of with the following directions : i) The appeal filed on behalf of accused appellant Chhotkya alias Chhoteylala stands dismissed as having become abated. ii) The appeal filed on behalf of accused appellants Bhagwan, Kaluram and Ramhet is partly allowed. iii) Their conviction is maintained, but their sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them in confinement, as indicated above. iv) The sentence of the accused appellants was suspended and they are on bail. They need not to surrender and their bail bonds stand cancelled. v) The proceedings, which are said to be pending against the accused appellants, under Section 446, Cr. P.C. are hereby dropped. Impugned judgment stands modified, as indicated hereinabove. Appeal partly allowed.