Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 994 (RAJ)

Ramnarayan v. State of Rajasthan

2015-05-05

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 29.10.2001 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Bandikui, District Dausa in Cr. Appeal No. 2/2001, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and affirmed the judgment dated 7.12.2000 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Bandikui in Criminal Case No. 54/1998, whereby he convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 3/25 of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo 1 years SI with a fine of Rs. 300/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 2 months SI. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 13.6.1995, a written report was submitted to the SHO, Police Station, Bandikui by ASI, Hari Ram. On the basis of said report, FIR No. 237/1995 was registered at Police Station, Bandikui for the offence under Section 3/25 of Arms Act. Thereafter the investigation was commenced and after completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused petitioner. The trial court framed charges against the accused petitioner for the offence under Section 3/25 Arms Act, who denied for the same and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 5 witnesses and exhibited some documents. Thereafter the statement of the accused petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.RC. After conclusion of trial, the trial court vide judgment dated 7.12.2000 convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 3/25 of Arms Act and sentenced him as indicated here-in-above. Against the said judgment, the petitioner filed appeal, but the learned Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 29.10.2001 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment passed by the trial court. 3. Against the said judgment dated 29.10.2001 passed by the appellate court, this revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner. 4. Against the said judgment, the petitioner filed appeal, but the learned Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 29.10.2001 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment passed by the trial court. 3. Against the said judgment dated 29.10.2001 passed by the appellate court, 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 courts below, but he is only requesting to this Court that looking to the fact that at the time of occurrence there was no minimum sentence provided under Section 3/25 of Arms Act; the occurrence said to have taken place in June, 1995 i.e. about 20 years ago from today; the accused petitioner has remained in custody for about 5 days; he is facing the trial from the last 20 years; he is not a previously convicted person; he is having the children of marriageable age; and the age of the accused petitioner is about 45 years, he should be given the benefit of probation 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 petitioner should be given the benefit of probation nor he should be released for the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated above. The courts below after due appreciation of evidence, have rightly passed the judgments convicting and sentencing the accused petitioner for the alleged offence, 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 give the benefit of probation to the petitioner, 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 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. Hence, this revision petition is disposed of with the following directions : (i) The revision petition filed by 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 suspended and he is on bail. He need not to surrender and his bail bonds stand cancelled. Impugned judgments stand modified, as indicated hereinabove.