Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 978 (RAJ)

Ram Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2013-05-10

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2013
JUDGMENT Since both these appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 21-8-1990 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa Camp, Bandikui in Sessions Case No. 10/88, hence the arguments have been heard together and they are being decided by this common judgment. Appeal No. 306/1990 : 2. Appeal No. 306/1990 has been filed by accused appellants Ram Singh and Kalu Ram, whereby the learned trial Court convicted them for the offence under Section 147, IPC and sentenced to undergo 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month simple Imprisonment; and they have also been convicted for the offence under Section 323/149, IPC and sentenced to undergo 6 months with R.I. with fine of Rs.100/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month simple imprisonment; and under Section 325/149, IPC, they have been convicted and sentenced to undergo 4 years RI, with fine of Rs.500/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month SI. Appeal No. 308/1990 : 3. Appeal No. 308/1990 has been filed by appellants Srikishan, Dharam Singh, Bachchu Singh, Kishan Lal, and Chandra, whereby the learned trial Court convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 147, IPC and sentenced them to undergo six months R.I. with fine of Rs.100/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. They have also been convicted under Section 323/149, IPC and sentenced to undergo six months R.I. with fine of Rs.100/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month SI; and Section 325/149, IPC they have also been convicted and sentenced to undergo four years RI with fine of Rs.500/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. 4. 4. At the very out-set, 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 requesting to this Court that looking to the fact that occurrence took place on 14-11-1987, which is about 25 years ago from today; the accused appellants Ram Singh and Kalu Ram have remained in judicial custody for about 34 days, while accused appellants Srikishan and Dharam Singh have remained in judicial custody for about 109 days; and accused appellant Bachchu Singh and Kishan Lal have remained in judicial custody for about 34 days and 23 days respectively; and accused appellant Chandar remained in judicial custody for about 35 days; they are having the children of marriagable age; they are not the habitual offenders; they belong to respectable family; and they are facing the mental agony since the last 25 years, either they should be released on probation or they should be released for the period already undergone by them. He has also drawn the attention of this Court towards the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Naib Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in 1986 Cri LJ 2061 : ( AIR 1986 SC 2192 ) wherein their Lordships observed as under: “Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The judgment of the High Court after convicting the appellant under Section 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 Government 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 April 22, 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.5000/- or in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The amount of fine shall be deposited in the Court of 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. The amount of fine shall be deposited in the Court of 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. Learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants, ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them in confinement. Hence, both these appeals are disposed of with the following directions : i) The appeals are partly allowed. ii) The conviction of the appellants is maintained. iii) The sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them in judicial custody, as indicated hereinabove. iv) The sentence of the accused appellants was suspended and they are on bail. They need not to surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged. 8. Impugned judgment stands modified, as indicated hereinabove. Appeals partly allowed.