Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 101 (RAJ)

Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2016-01-14

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. This criminal revision petition has been filed against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 11.2.2005 passed by the Special Judge (Women Atrocities & Dowry Cases), Kota (short ‘the Appellate court’) in sessions case No. 114/2003 whereby he partly allowed the appeal after maintaining the judgment of conviction but reduced the sentence dated 21.10.2003 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kota (hereinafter ‘the trial court’) in criminal case No. 57/1992. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the complainant Satya Narayan lodged an FIR No. 147/1989 at P.S. Kunhari District Kota on 5.9.1989 at 10:15 P.M. for the offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 342 and 323 IPC in connection with the occurrence, alleged to have taken place on the same day i.e. on 5.9.1989 at 9:30 PM against seven accused persons under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 342 and 302 IPC. The complainant further mentioned in the report that there is an old dispute between them, Madan and Kalar. On that day, his brother Jagdish and Sardar Kulveer Singh went towards his old house. He thought that there may be chance of quarrel,so he went along with his brother Suraj. As soon as they reached towards the house, there was a crowd in front of the house of Kalu @ Kalar. When they reached there, they gave sword blow with intention to kill him, on his forehead. Ram LaL Kir also gave lathi blow on his right hand. When his brother Suraj came to save, then Madan, Kaiu @ Kalar gave knife blow on the hips. Madan Lai gave sword blow on the palm of right hand, Gopal gave dhariya blow on the left leg, Ram LaL, Raju @ Chhoga and others gave lathi blow and became unconscious. He saved himself. It was further mentioned that Madan and Kalu @ Kalar took his brother and locked him in his house. He was attacked along with his brother Suraj by these persons with intention to kill them and they have caused injuries. 3. After investigation the police submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons namely; Madanlal, Kalu @ Kalar, Ramlal, Kanhaiyalal and Raju for the offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2 (North), Kota. After cognizance, the matter was committed to the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Kota. 3. After investigation the police submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons namely; Madanlal, Kalu @ Kalar, Ramlal, Kanhaiyalal and Raju for the offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2 (North), Kota. After cognizance, the matter was committed to the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Kota. From the Court of learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, No. 1, Kota, the matter was forwarded to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kota (‘the trial court’ for short, hereinafter). Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges against the accused persons for the offences under sections 148, 326/149, 325/149, 324/149 and 323/149 IPC, who denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be triad in the matter. 4. Thereafter, the statements of the eight prosecution witnesses were recorded. After that the statements of the accused persons were recorded under sections 313 Cr.PC. 5. The trial court after hearing, convicted and sentenced the accused petitioners vide judgment dated 21.10.2003. The accused petitioners, being aggrieved with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, preferred a criminal appeal before the Special Judge (Women Atrocities & Dowry Cases) Kota (‘the appellate court’ for short, hereinafter). The appellate court after hearing partly allowed the appeal after maintaining the judgment of conviction and reduced the sentence awarded by the trial court, vide its judgment dated 11.2.2005. The accused petitioners being aggrieved with the judgments passed by the courts below, have preferred instant criminal revision petition before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the accused petitioners has submitted that he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the courts below, but he is only requesting to this court that the sentence awarded to the petitioners may be reduced for the period already undergone by them in confinement. It has been submitted that the total sentence awarded to the accused petitioners by the appellate court for the offence under section 326/149 IPC is one year simple imprisonment, under section 324/149 IPC is six months simple imprisonment, under sections 325 and 325/149 IPC is six months simple imprisonment out of which the accused petitioner No. 1 Ram Lal has remained in judicial lock up for approx. one month and 29 days and the accused petitioner No. 2-Kanhaiya Lal has remained in judicial lock up for approx. one month and 15 days. one month and 29 days and the accused petitioner No. 2-Kanhaiya Lal has remained in judicial lock up for approx. one month and 15 days. Counsel submitted that the accused petitioners are very poor persons and their children are of marriageable age. Counsel has further submitted that the alleged incident has taken place on 5.9.1989 and almost 26 years have lapsed and since then they are facing trial. Hence either the accused petitioners be given the benefit of probation under section 360 Cr.P.C. and if not, then their sentence be reduced to the period already undergone by them in confinement for the period as indicated herein above. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the same and contended that the impugned judgments passed by the learned courts below are just and proper. Hence there is no need to interfere with the impugned judgments. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 9. 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 Indian 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.5,000/- 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." 10. 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." 10. Looking to the facts & circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the arguments of learned counsel for the accused petitioners as well as the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Naib Singh (supra), and the fact that the accused petitioners are not habitual offenders, accused petitioner No. 1-Ram Lal has remained in custody for approximately one month and 29 days and accused petitioner No. 2 Kanhaiya Lal has remained in custody for approx. one month and 15 days out of the afore-mentioned total sentence, I think it just and proper to reduce the sentence already undergone by the accused petitioners in confinement. 11. In the result, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed with the following directions: (i) The conviction of the accused petitioners is maintained. (ii) Their sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them in confinement, as indicated above. (iii) The accused petitioners are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. They need not to surrender before the trial court. (iv) Impugned judgment of the appellant court stands modified, as indicated here-in-above. (v) Rest part of the Judgment passed by the appellant court shall remain as it is.