Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1358 (RAJ)

Shiv Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2015-07-21

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 4.10.1994 passed by learned Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge, Bayana Distt. Bharatpur in sessions case no.47/1992 whereby he has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under: U/s.325 IPC: Sentenced for a period of 4 years RI and fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months RI. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that an FIR was registered at P.S. Weir, Distt. Bharatpur for the offence under Secs.147, 148, 149, 323 and 324 IPC. After usual investigation, police filed challan against the appellant/s before the concerned court/Magistrate, from where the case was committed to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Bayana for trial. The trial court has framed the charges for the aforesaid offences. The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and got exhibited certain documents. Statement of appellant/s under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above vide judgment dated 4.10.1994. 3. Against the said impugned judgment dated 4.10.1994, this appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant 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 appellant should be reduced for the period already undergone by him in custody on the grounds that the occurrence took place on 9.11.1991 i.e. 24 years ago; and since then he is facing trial, he remained in judicial custody for about 05 days; he is having grand-sons and grand-daughters of marriagable age, he is not the habitual offender and he belongs to a respectable family. 5. 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. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 7. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Naib Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in 1986 Cr.LJ 2061 observed as under: "Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Hence there is no need to interfere with the impugned judgment. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 7. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Naib Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in 1986 Cr.LJ 2061 observed as under: "Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The Judgment of the High Court after convicting the appellant under Sec.326 of the India Penal Code is upheld. As to the sentence, we are inclined to take a lenient view. We are informed that the appellant is 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, Ist 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." 8. Looking to the facts & circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants as well as the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Naib Singh (supra), and the fact that the appellant 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 appellant. 9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed with the following directions: (i) conviction of the appellant 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 appellant/s 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. Appeal partly allowed.