Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1180 (RAJ)

Ram Karan v. State of Rajasthan

2014-05-20

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2014
Judgment This Cr. Appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment dated 8.7.1991 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Baran in Sessions Case No. 116/1990, whereby each of the accused appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Under Section 326/34 IPC: To undergo 3 ½ years RI with fine of Rs. 100/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month's SI Under Section 323/34 IPC: To undergo 3 months' SI Brief facts of the case are as under:- “On 15.5.1984, complainant Arjun submitted a written report at Police Station, Baran, on the basis of which FIR was registered for the offence under Section2 307, 34 IPC. After completion of investigation, the police submitted a challan against the accused appellants before the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Mobile Baran. Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, who transferred the case to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Baran for trial. The trial court framed charges against the accused appellants. The accused appellants denied for the same and claimed for trial. Thereafter the prosecution has examined its witnesses. Thereafter the statement of accused appellants were recorded under Section 313 CrPC. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court passed the judgment dated 8.7.1991 convicting and sentencing the appellants, as indicated above.” Against the said judgment dated 8.7.1991 passed by the trial court, the appeal was preferred before this Court. Without going into the merits of the case, 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 the matter pertains to the year 1984 which is about 30 years ago from today approximately, the accused appellants have remained in confinment for about 36 days; the appellants belong to a respectable family, having a large family dependent upon them; and they are not the habitual offenders; it is the first offence 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 here-in-above. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex court rendered in the case of Naib Singh Versus State of Punjab, reported in 1986 Cr.L.J. 2061, wherein their Lordships observed as under: "Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The judgment of the High Court 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." Learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, 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 here-in-above. Hence, this appeal is disposed of with the following directions: i) The conviction of the appellants as awarded by the trial court is maintained. ii) The sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them in confinement, as indicated above. iii)The sentence of the accused appellants was suspended and they are on bail. They need not to surrender and their bail bonds stand cancelled. Impugned judgment stands modified, as indicated hereinabove.