Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 896 (RAJ)

Koju Khan v. State of Rajasthan

2016-06-22

SANGEET LODHA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sangeet Lodha, J. This revision petition is directed against judgment and order dated 23.10.02 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases) and Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Criminal Appeal No. 38/2000, affirming the judgment and order dated 27.3.98 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Loonkaransar in Criminal Case No. 279/93, whereby the accused Koju Khan and Sattar Khan were convicted and sentenced as under: 1.Accused Koju Khan u/S 148 IPC 341 IPC 323/149 IPC 326 IPC To 6 months R.I To 15 days R.I To 3 months R.I To 2 years R.I & to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default lo further undergo 2 months S.I. 2.Accused Sattar Khan u/S 148 IPC 323 IPC 341 IPC 326/149 IPC To 6 months S.I. To 3 months S.I. To 15 days S.I. To 1 year's S.I. & to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- by each and in default to further undergo 2 months S.I. 2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the accused petitioners do 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 more than 23 years have lapsed since the occurrence of the incident. It is submitted that at the time of occurrence accused Koju Khan and Sattar Khan were 23 years and 20 years of age respectively and by now they have already settled in their life and have not indulged in commission of any offences subsequently. Learned counsel submitted that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, taking into consideration the gravity of charges proved, the lapse of time, the age of the accused petitioners and other relevant aspects, it would not be appropriate to send them behind the bars at this stage. Learned counsel submitted that the sentence awarded to the accused petitioners deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone. It is further submitted that the amount of fine imposed by the trial Court may be increased as considering reasonable by this Court and may be directed to be paid to the victim-Lal Khan, who has suffered grievous hurt by dangerous weapon. 3. It is further submitted that the amount of fine imposed by the trial Court may be increased as considering reasonable by this Court and may be directed to be paid to the victim-Lal Khan, who has suffered grievous hurt by dangerous weapon. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the accused petitioners and submitted that the sentence awarded by the trial court affirmed by the Appellate Court for the charges proved does not warrant any interference by this Court. 4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the accused petitioners and learned public prosecutor and also perused the material on record. 5. Indisputably, the incident had occurred on 14.6.93 and thus, by now more than 23 years have elapsed. The accused petitioner-Sattar Khan and Koju Khan remained in police custody/judicial custody during the period from 6.9.93 to 16.9.93 and from 11.8.93 to 20.8.93 respectively. Thereafter, dismissal of the appeal by the Appellate Court, they remained behind the bars for the period from 23.10.02 to 29.10.02 and thus, in all the accused Sattar Khan and Koju Khan have remained behind the bars only for 18 days and 17 days respectively. 6. It is not in dispute that the victim-Lal Khan has suffered grievous hurt inasmuch as his little finger was completely cut away except the small tag of skin near its base. As a matter of fact, while examining the witness Lal Khan (PW3), the court has specifically noticed that the left little finger and the adjoining finger of the victim-Lal Khan has been completely cut away from the base. 7. As laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of ‘State of M.P. v. Mehtab 2015 (5) SCC 197 , that it is the duty of the court to award just sentence to the convict those against whom charges are proved. The Court observed that every mitigating or aggravating circumstance may be given due weight but mechanical reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone cannot be appreciated. The Court further observed that the sentence has to be fair not only to the accused but also victim and society. 8. In the instant case, admittedly the accused petitioner-Sattar Khan and Koju Khan as on the date of occurrence of the incident were 23 years and 20 years of age respectively. The Court further observed that the sentence has to be fair not only to the accused but also victim and society. 8. In the instant case, admittedly the accused petitioner-Sattar Khan and Koju Khan as on the date of occurrence of the incident were 23 years and 20 years of age respectively. It is to-be noticed that while admitting the revision petition vide order dated 23.10.02, the sentence awarded to the accused 5 petitioners was suspended till final decision of the revision petition. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused petitioners have criminal track record. But then, the fact remains that in the incident occurred, the victim-Lal Khan has suffered grievous hurt noticed as above and thus, it would be unjust to reduce the sentence awarded to the accused petitioners by the trial court to 10 the period already undergone without awarding any compensation to the victim-Lal Khan. 9. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, this Court considers it appropriate to modify the order passed by the trial court, affirmed by the Appellate Court, awarding sentence for the charges proved in terms is that the sentence awarded to the accused by the trial court shall stand reduced to the period already undergone, subject to the condition that the accused petitioners pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- each to the victim-Lal Khan as compensation. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioners submitted 20 that the accused petitioners are ready to pay the amount of compensation to the victim-Lal Khan as determined by this Court. 11. In the result, while maintaining the conviction of the accused petitioners for the charges proved, it is directed that the sentence awarded to them by the trial court shall stand reduced to the period of sentence already 25 undergone by them, subject to the condition that accused petitioners pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- each to the victim-Lal Khan s/o Phoose Khan. The amount shall be deposited by the accused petitioners with the trial court within a period of 2 months from the date of this order, falling which, the accused petitioners shall undergo the sentence awarded by the trial court, affirmed by 30 the Appellate Court, as aforesaid. The amount to be deposited by the accused petitioners in terms of this order shall be paid to the victim-Lal Khan forthwith. 12. The amount to be deposited by the accused petitioners in terms of this order shall be paid to the victim-Lal Khan forthwith. 12. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.