Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1339 (RAJ)

Shatrughan Mandal v. State of Rajasthan

2015-07-20

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2015
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment/order dated 21.10.2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Alwar in Cr.Appeal No. 37/2002 (34/2002) (65/2000), whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and affirmed the judgment/order dated 14.7.2000 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Alwar in Cr. Case No. 9/1997, convicting and sentencing the petitioner, as under: For the offence under Section 279 IPC: To undergo six months' SI with a fine of Rs. 500; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month's SI For the offence under Section 304 A IPC: To undergo one year's SI with a fine of Rs. 4000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 8 month's SI. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.12.1996, an FIR was registered at Police Station, MIA, Alwar on the basis of complaint submitted by Kailash. Thereafter the investigation was commenced and after completion of investigation, the police filed the challan. Thereafter the charges were framed; the accused denied for the same and claimed for trial. The prosecution produced its witnesses. Thereafter the statement of accused person were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned trial court vide judgment/order dated 14.7.2000 convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner as indicated here-in-above. Against the said judgment and order of the trial court, the petitioner preferred the appeal, but the appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner vide judgment/order dated 21.10.2002 and affirmed the judgment/order passed by the trial court, as indicated here-in-above. 3. Against the said judgment, this revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner. 4. Against the said judgment and order of the trial court, the petitioner preferred the appeal, but the appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner vide judgment/order dated 21.10.2002 and affirmed the judgment/order passed by the trial court, as indicated here-in-above. 3. Against the said judgment, this revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the court below, but he is only requesting to the Court that looking to the fact that occurrence took place in the year 1996 i.e. 19 years ago from today; the petitioner is facing the trial since the last 19 years; when the occurrence took place, the petitioner was young and now the petitioner is old aged person; the petitioner has remained in custody for about 1 month and 21 days; the petitioner is married person and having the children of marriageable age; he is not previously convicted person; and he is not the habitual offender; the alleged offence is bailable and triable by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, hence either he should be given the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act or Section 360 Cr.P.C.; 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. He has contended that neither the accused petitioner should be given the benefit of probation nor he should be released for the period already undergone by him in confinement. The courts below after due appreciation of evidence submitted by both the parties rightly passed the judgment, hence no interference is required by this Court. 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 petitioner on probation, but in my view, ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated here-in-above. Hence, this revision petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The revision petition filed by the petitioner 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 petitioner was suspence of the accused petitioner was suspended and he is on bail. He need not to surrender and his bail bonds stand cancelled. 8. Impugned judgments stand modified, as indicated hereinabove.