Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1291 (RAJ)

Jitu v. State of Rajasthan

2013-07-17

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved of the judgment dated 24.1.1989 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhilwara in Sessions Case Mo. 62/1984 whereby the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as below: Jeetu Under Section 325 2 Years' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months imprisonment. Under Section 326 3 Years' R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and I.P.C. in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months imprisonment. Lehru Under Section 3263 Years' R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and I.P.C. in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months imprisonment. Badri Under Section 323 1 Year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and I.P.C. in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months' imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Out of fine imposed upon the accused appellants, Rs. 1,000/- each were ordered to be paid to the injured Magni Ram and Madhulal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants at the outset does not challenge the conviction of the appellants but limits his prayer to the aspect of reduction of the sentence awarded to the appellants. Learned counsel submits that the dispute took place over a sudden quarrel of possession on the joint property. He submits that the appellants have remained in custody in excess of one year during the course of trial. Learned counsel submits that in view of the fact that the accused and the complainant party are closely related and as the incident took place long back in the year 1984 sending the appellants back to custody after a lapse of nearly 29 years would be very harsh to the appellants who have already settled in their life. Learned counsel further submits that the appellants were about 25 to 27 years of age when the incident took place and now they are nearing the age of 60 years and thus sending them back to custody is not warranted looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel thus submits that the appeal be accepted on the question of sentence and the sentence awarded to the appellants be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 4. Learned counsel thus submits that the appeal be accepted on the question of sentence and the sentence awarded to the appellants be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants. He contends that the appellants mercilessly assaulted the members of the complainant party and caused injuries to as many as 7 persons. The injured Mangilal expired because of the injuries caused to him. Thus, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that no leniency is called for on the aspect of sentence and that the appeal filed by the appellants be rejected. 5. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. Perused the judgment impugned and the record. 6. It is not in dispute that the appellants and the complainant party are closely related. The incident took place over a tussle of possession on the joint property. The incident took place in the year 1984 and the appellants have already suffered custody in excess of one year. Therefore, this Court feels that the appellants deserve leniency on the question o sentence because sending them back to custody after a lapse of long duration of 29 years would not be expedient in the interest of justice. The appellants by now must be nearing 60th year of their life, and therefore, if they are sent to custody now after the lapse of nearly three decades, it would be extremely harsh on them. However, as the appellants have been held guilty for having caused injuries to seven members of the complainant party, thus, whilst considering the reduction in substantive sentences awarded to them, the fine awarded to the appellants has to be enhanced so that the injured can be adequately compensated. 7. The appellant Badri who has been awarded sentence of one year R.I. for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. has already remained in custody for a period in excess of one year. Therefore, the appeal filed by Badri has become in fructuous. 8. Accordingly, the appeal filed by Jitu and Lehru is allowed in part. The conviction of the appellants for the offences mentioned above is upheld. Therefore, the appeal filed by Badri has become in fructuous. 8. Accordingly, the appeal filed by Jitu and Lehru is allowed in part. The conviction of the appellants for the offences mentioned above is upheld. The substantive sentence awarded to the appellants Jitu and Lehru is reduced to the period already undergone by them, however, the sentence of fine awarded to each of them for the offence under Section 326 is enhanced to a sum of Rs. 30,000/-. The fine shall be deposited by the appellants Jitu and Lehru in the trial Court within a period of three months from today and the trial Court shall thereafter disburse the same to the injured Magni Ram, Madhu, Mangi, Nolaji, Mst. Chandi and Mohan in equal proportions. If any of these persons has expired, then the amount of fine be paid to their successors.Petition dismissed. *******