Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1344 (RAJ)

Hari Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2015-07-20

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. This revision has been filed against the impugned judgment & order dated 17.8.2010 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FT) No. 2, Sikar in Cr. Appeal No. 8/2005 whereby he confirmed the judgment dated 29.3.2005 passed by learned Judl. Magistrate, Srimadhopur, Sikar in Cr. Case No. 288/1996 by which he convicted the accused petitioner under Section 279 IPC and sentenced for 03 months SI, for offence under Section 304-A IPC, sentenced to one year SI. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that an FIR for the offences under Section 279 and 304A IPC was registered at P.S. Srimadhopur, Distt. Sikar. After usual investigation, police filed charge-sheet before the concerned court/Magistrate for offence under Section 279 and 304A IPC. The learned trial court framed the charges, to which the petitioner denied and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and got exhibited certain documents. Statement of petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the petitioner as indicated above vide judgment dated 29.3.2005. 3. Against the said judgment dated 29.3.2005, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court i.e. Addl. Sessions Judge (FT) No. 2, Srimadhopur who rejected the appeal and confirmed the judgment of trial court for offence under Section 279 and 304A IPC, but quashed the offence under Section 3/181, 134/181 and 134/187 MV Act vide judgment dated 17.8.2010. Hence this revision petition has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that without going into the merits of the case, he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the court below, but he is only requesting to this court that the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced for the period already undergone by him in custody. 5. It is further contended that accused petitioner has remained in custody for approximately 02 months and 10 days. 6. It is also contended that accused petitioner is facing trial for the last approximately 19 years, he is not habitual offender, no case is pending against him, hence he should be released on probation, if not, then his sentence may be reduced for the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated herein above. 7. 6. It is also contended that accused petitioner is facing trial for the last approximately 19 years, he is not habitual offender, no case is pending against him, hence he should be released on probation, if not, then his sentence may be reduced for the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated herein above. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the same and contended that the impugned order passed by the trial court is just and proper. Hence there is no need to interfere with the impugned judgment. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 9. Looking to the facts & circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that accused has remained in custody for approximately 02 months and 10 days, he is not the habitual offender, no case is made out against him, I think it just and proper to reduce the sentence already undergone by the petitioner. 10. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed with the following directions : (i) The conviction of the petitioner is maintained. (ii) His sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated above. (iii) The sentence of the accused petitioner was suspended and he is on bail. He need not to surrender and his bail bonds stand cancelled. (iv) Impugned judgment of the trial court stands modified, as indicated here-in-above.