Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 892 (RAJ)

Kishore Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2016-06-21

SANGEET LODHA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sangeet Lodha, J. This revision petition is directed against judgment and order dated 16.7.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.) Jalore, in Criminal Appeal No. 27/2002, affirming the judgment and order dated 2.11.1998 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore in Criminal Case No. 251/1995, whereby while acquitting the accused Madan Singh and Surendra Singh of all the charges and acquitting the accused-petitioners for the offences under Sections 148, 417, 323/149, 324/149 and 325/149 I.P.C., have convicted them for offences under Sections 324/34 and 325/34 and sentenced as under: 1. Kishore Singh 2. Chhail Singh 3. Shaitan Singh 323/34 I.P.C. 6 months R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/- each, default of payment of fine to further undergo one month S.I. to each 1. Kishore Singh 2. Chhail Singh 3. Shaitan Singh 325/34 I.P.C. 1 year's R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, 'n default of payment of fine to further undergo Two months S.I. to each All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. At the outset, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the accused-petitioners does not want to press the petition questioning the legality of the order passed by the Appellate Court, affirming the order passed by the Trial Court, convicting the accused-petitioners as aforesaid. However, learned Counsel submitted that there exists a land dispute between the parties and the complainant party trespassed over the land comprising Khasra No. 113 in their possession and thus, the accused-petitioners have exercised their right to private defence. Learned Counsel submitted that taking into consideration the nature of accusation and the fact that more than 20 years have lapsed since the occurrence of the incident and therefore, it will not be appropriate to send the accused-petitioners behind the bars and the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioners behind the bars and the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioners deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone. In support of the contention, learned Counsel has relied upon a decision of this Court in the matter of Hallu & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 2014(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 816, wherein the incident was more than 30 years old, the Court reduced the sentence of two years imprisonment awarded by the Trial Court to the period undergone. 3. In support of the contention, learned Counsel has relied upon a decision of this Court in the matter of Hallu & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 2014(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 816, wherein the incident was more than 30 years old, the Court reduced the sentence of two years imprisonment awarded by the Trial Court to the period undergone. 3. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that for the charges proved, the order of punishment passed by the Trial Court, affirmed by the Appellate Court, is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. However, learned Public Prosecutor fairly submitted that the petitioners are not found involved in commission of the offence subsequent to their conviction by the Trial Court as aforesaid. 4. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused the evidence on record. 5. It is to be noticed that the accused Kishore Singh and complainant Vijay Singh are real brothers and thus, the accused-petitioners and the members of the complainant party are close relatives. It appears that there exists a dispute between the brothers in respect of the share in the land comprising Khasra No. 113. The incident had occurred on 2.7.1995 and thus, by now, about 21 years have lapsed. On 25.7.2002, while admitting the revision petition, the sentence passed by the Trial Court, affirmed by the Appellate Court was ordered to be suspended by this Court. The appellants have undergone the sentence only for a period of ten days. But the fact remains that the accused and the victims are closely related and it is not the case that the accused-petitioners are found indulged in commission of the offence after conviction by the Trial Court as aforesaid. Thus, taking into consideration the lapse of time and totality of the facts and circumstances, this Court considers it appropriate to reduce the sentence passed by the Trial Court, affirmed by the Appellate Court, to the period of sentence already undergone by the accused-petitioners. 6. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. The conviction of the accused-petitioners by the Trial Court for offences under Sections 323/34 and 325/34 I.P.C. is not interfered with. However, the sentence awarded by the Trial Court to the accused-petitioners is reduced to the sentence already undergone by them. The bail bonds submitted by the accused-petitioners shall stand discharged.