Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1340 (RAJ)

Vashirkhan v. State of Rajasthan

2015-07-20

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2015
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment/order dated 6.4.1994 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Bayana in Cr. Case No. 54/1993, whereby he convicted the appellants for the offence under Sections 323, 324, 325 read with 34 IPC and sentenced them as under: Accused appellant Vashirkhan S/o Rajekhan Convicted of the offence under Section 325 IPC and sentenced to undergo 2 year's RI with a fine of Rs. 500/-. Convicted for the offence under Section 324/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo 1 year's RI with a fine of Rs 200/- Convicted for the offence under Section 323/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo 6 months' SI with a fine of Rs. 200/- In default of payment of fine, the accused appellant was directed to further undergo 3 months' rigorous imprisonment. Accused appellant Hameed Khan s/o Vashir Khan Convicted for the offence under Section 325/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo 6 months' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/- In default of payment of fine, the accused appellant was directed to further undergo 3 months' rigorous imprisonment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 8.2.1993, a report was submitted by Kamruddin S/o Ramjani at Police Station, Weir alleging therein that on 17.2.1993 at about 4-5 PM, the appellants came to the house of the complainant and inflicted injuries to Ramjani, Babloo and Amin. It was also alleged that the injured were taken to the hospital, from where they were taken to Bharatpur. On the basis of above report, the police registered a case No. 23/1993 for the offence under Sections 323 and 324 IPC and investigation was commenced. After completion of investigation, the police filed the challan for the offence under Sections 325, 324, 323 and 307 readwith Section 34 IPC. 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 6.4.1994, while acquitting the accused persons for the offence under Section 307 IPC, convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as indicated here-in-above. 3. Against the said judgment, this appeal has been filed by the accused appellants. 4. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned trial court vide judgment dated 6.4.1994, while acquitting the accused persons for the offence under Section 307 IPC, convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as indicated here-in-above. 3. Against the said judgment, this appeal has been filed by the accused appellants. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that just to purchase the peace of mind, he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the court below, but he is only requesting to this Court that alleged incident is said to have taken place in the year 1993 i.e. about 22 years ago from today; the appellants are facing the trial since the last 22 years; the appellants are old aged person and suffering from oldness diseases; they are married persons and having the children of marriageable age; they are not the habitual offenders; the accused appellants were released on anticipatory bail; it is the first offence of their life, hence the accused appellants should be released on probation and benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders' Act should also be given to them. 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 parties, in my view ends of justice would be met if the accused appellants are released on probation and benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders' Act is extended to them. Hence, this appeal is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The appeal filed on behalf of accused appellants is partly allowed. (ii) Their conviction is maintained, but they are given the benefit of Probation and it is ordered that they shall be released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for a period of one year, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand) with one surety of the like amount before the trial court with the stipulation that he shall keep peace and be of good behaviour for one year and that he will not commit any offence during the period of probation. 20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand) with one surety of the like amount before the trial court with the stipulation that he shall keep peace and be of good behaviour for one year and that he will not commit any offence during the period of probation. (iii) They will also mention in the bonds that they will appear before the Court concerned and receive the sentence awarded by the trial Court, as and when they are called upon to do so. (iv) The bail bonds, as mentioned above, shall be furnished by appellants within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the trial court shall steps against the appellants in accordance with law. (v) The accused appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds will be cancelled by the trial Court only after furnishing the fresh bonds by the appellants before the trial court, as mentioned above. 8. Impugned judgment stands modified, as indicated hereinabove.