Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1328 (RAJ)

Jamwant Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2015-07-17

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2015
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment/order dated 26.8.1993 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Dholpur in Sessions Case No.30/1991, whereby he convicted the appellant for the offence under Sec. 325 IPC and sentenced him to undergo 2 year's RI with a fine of Rs.1500/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 months' RI. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 16.2.1990, a written report was lodged at Police Station, Bari, District Dholpur at the instance of one Nawab Singh. On the basis of said report, FIR No.55/1990 was registered and investi-gation was commenced. After completion of investigation, the police filed the challan. Thereafter charges were framed against the accused persons, who denied for the same and claimed for trial. The prosecution produced its witnesses. The statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 CrPC. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned trial court vide judgment dated 26.8.1993, while acquitting the co-accused persons, convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as indicated here-in-above. 3. Against the said judgment, this appeal has been filed by the accused appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant 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 occurrence took place in the year 1990 i.e. about 25 years' ago from today; the appellant is facing the trial since the last 25 years; when the occurrence took place, the appellant was young and now the appellant is old aged person; the accused Kuldeep has remained in custody for about 6 days; he is married person having the children of marriageable age, and he is not previously convicted person; he is the only family member in his family who earns the livelihood; no other case is pending against the accused appellants except this one; other co-accused persons have been acquitted; either he should be given the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act or Section 360 CrPC; and if not; then he should be released for the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated here-in-above. 5. Learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same. 5. Learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same. He has contended that neither the benefit of probation should be given to the appellant nor he should be released for the period already undergone by him in confinement. 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 parties, I do not think it proper to release the accused appellant on probation, but in my view, ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated here-in-above. Hence, this appeal is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed; (ii) His conviction is maintained; (iii) His sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated above. (iv) The sentence of the accused appellant was suspended and he is on bail. He need not to surrender and his bail bonds stand cancelled. 8. Impugned judgment stands modified, as indicated hereinabove.