Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1485 (RAJ)

Shri v. State of Rajasthan

2015-08-09

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 30.9.1996 passed by learned Spl. Judge, Dacoity Affected Area & Addl. Sessions Judge, Karauli in sessions case no. 33/1993 whereby he has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:- U/s. 326 IPC: 02 years 06 months RI, fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of fine to further undergo 03 months SI. U/s. 326/34 IPC: 02 years 06 months RI, fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of fine to further undergo 03 months SI. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that an FIR was registered at P.S. Karauli for the offence under Sections 326, 307, 447, 323, 379 and 34 IPC. After usual investigation, police filed charge-sheet against the appellant/s for the aforesaid offences before the concerned court/Magistrate, from where the case was committed to the court Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area & Addl. Sessions Judge, Karauli for trial. The trial court has framed the charges against the appellant Shri for offence under Section 307 IPC and against Ramdhan for offence under Section 307/34 IPC, to which they denied and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and got exhibited certain documents. Statement of appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated above vide judgment dated 30.9.1996. 3. Against the said impugned judgment dated 30.9.1996, this appeal has been preferred by the accused appellants. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants 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 them in custody on the grounds that the occurrence took place on 3.8.1992 i.e. 23 years ago; the appellants were young at the time of incident but now they are old persons having children of marriageable age, they remained in judicial custody for about 08 days, they are not the habitual offender and they 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. 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. The Judgment of the High Court after convicting the appellant under Section 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 fimne 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, 1st 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." 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. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed with the following directions:- (i) conviction of the appellants is maintained. (ii) Their sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them in confinement, as indicated above. (iii) The sentence of the accused appellants was suspended and they are on bail. They need not to surrender and their bail bonds stand canceled. (ii) Their sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them in confinement, as indicated above. (iii) The sentence of the accused appellants was suspended and they are on bail. They need not to surrender and their bail bonds stand canceled. (iv) Impugned judgment of the trial court stands modified, as indicated here-in-above.