Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1910 (RAJ)

Suresh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2013-10-31

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant - Suresh Kumar challenging the judgment dated 21.7.2008 passed by lie learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), No. 3, Udaipur Camp Salumber, Distt. Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 90/2007, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced as under:- OFFENCE SENTENCE Under Section 307 I.P.C. Ten year' R.1. and to pay a fine of L 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' S.I. Under Section 326 I.P.C. Seven years' R.1. and to pay a fine of L 500 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's S.I. Under Section 324 I.P.C. One year's S.I. and to pay a fine of L 500 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's S.I. 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that in this case, the appellant has been convicted for assaulting his wife Smt. Priyanka over a minor exchange of hot talks. When the appellant aimed a sword blow on the head of Smt. Priyanka, she raised her hands in order to save herself. Due to the sword blow, the injured received injuries on her hands, head and ear. The resultant injuries caused total emasculation of four fingers of the victim 3. An F.I.R. being F.I.R. No. 349/2007 was registered on the basis of an oral report given by Smt. Manjula, the mother of injured Smt. Priyanka to the SHOol the Police Station Rishabdev, Udaipur for the offences under Sections 324, 326 and 307 I.P.C. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for the offences under Sections 324, 326, 307 I.P.C. and Section 4/25 of the Arms L Act. The learned trial Judge at the conclusion of the trial proceeded to hold the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offences and sentenced him as above. Hence, the instant appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant challenging his conviction and sentences. 4. Learned counsel Shri Deepak Menaria appearing on behalf of the appellant does not challenge the appellant's conviction but limits his prayer to the question of sentences. He submits that the appellant is in custody from 18.9.2007 and, as such, he has suffered a substantive imprisonment for a period in excess of six years. 4. Learned counsel Shri Deepak Menaria appearing on behalf of the appellant does not challenge the appellant's conviction but limits his prayer to the question of sentences. He submits that the appellant is in custody from 18.9.2007 and, as such, he has suffered a substantive imprisonment for a period in excess of six years. He submitted that the appellant is ready to pay an appropriate compensation to the injured. He further submitted that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the appellant behind the bars any further, He thus prayed that the sentences awarded to the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. 6. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the judgment impugned as well as the record. 7. Upon considering the material available on the record and particularly the evidence of the victim Smt. Priyanka (PW-1), it is evident that the appellant and the injured Smt. Priyanka fell into love and married each other. When the injured was examined during investigation, she gave a statement Ex. D-l, in which, it was mentioned that she told her husband that he was having an affair with some other girl. Because of this aspersion cast on him by the wife, the appellant got provoked and caused injuries to her. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the sentences awarded to the appellant deserve to be reduced suitably. The appellant has already suffered a substantive imprisonment in excess of six years. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant is ready to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the victim. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is allowed in part. Whilst upholding the appellant's conviction for the aforesaid offences, the substantive sentences awarded to him are reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the amount of fine awarded to the appellant for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is enhanced from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 35000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo imprisonment of two years. Likewise, the amount of fine awarded to the appellant for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. is enhanced from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 35000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo imprisonment of two years. Likewise, the amount of fine awarded to the appellant for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. is enhanced from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 15,000/- and in default of payment of fine, shall further undergo imprisonment of one year. The conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. is confirmed. All the sentences hall run concurrently. 9. In the event, the amount of fine being deposited, the learned Trial Court tall disburse the same to the injured forthwith.The appellant shall be released from custody upon depositing the fine if not anted in any other case. The appeal is allowed partly in the terms set out hove.Appeal partly allowed. *******