Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 905 (RAJ)

Pamma Ram @ Ramlal v. State of Rajasthan

2016-06-27

P.K.LOHRA

body2016
JUDGMENT : P.K. Lohra, J. Unsuccessful in his attempt to assail the judgment dated 31st of January, 2001 rendered by Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Sadulshahar (for short, `learned trial Court') before the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 2, Sriganganagar (for short, `learned appellate Court'), petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. At the threshold, the learned trial Court convicted the petitioner for offences under Section 458, 323/34, 324/34 and 325/34 IPC and awarded foil owing sentences- S. No. Under Sentence Section Fine In default of payment of fine 1. 458 IPC One Year's Simple Imprisonment 200/- Fifteen days' Simple Imprisonment 2. 323/34 IPC One Year's Simple Imprisonment 200/- Fifteen days' Simple Imprisonment 3. 324/34 IPC Two Year's Simple Imprisonment 500/- One month's Simple Imprisonment 4. 325/34 IPC Two Year's Simple Imprisonment 500/- One month's Simple Imprisonment 2. Being aggrieved by judgment of learned trial Court, petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. before the learned appellate Court and the learned appellate Court, while affirming judgment of learned Court, dismissed the appeal. 3. In brief, facts of the case are that on 13.08.1997 at about 3:45 AM, a parcha bayan of complainant Sheyochand was recorded by Bhan Singh, ASI, Police Station, Sadulshahar at Govt. Hospital Sadulshahar. In the Parcha Bayan, it is divulged that there is estrangement between him and one Shri Sardara Ahir regarding a plot. In the night, when he was sleeping in his house constructed on the plot and his brother Menpal was sleeping adjacent to his house, at about 1:00 AM, Pappu S/o Sardara Ahir, Pammaram S/o Dararam along with two other persons armed with Ghandasi and lathis entered in his house. Pappu hit on his head by Ghandasi and Pamma Ram inflicted injuries to him by lathis. On hue and cry, his brother, Menpal, Prathviraj and some other persons came to scene of occurrence and therefore, the accused-persons ran away from the site. Thereafter, he was taken to hospital in a jeep of Harchand. On the basis of the parcha bayan, an FIR bearing No. 287/1997 for offences under Sections 458, 324, 34 IPC was registered. After investigation, police submitted challan against the accused-persons for offences under Sections 458, 324, 323, 325/34 IPC. The charges were framed against the accused-persons and accused-persons denied all the charges. Before the learned trial Court, the prosecution examined ten witnesses and exhibited several documents. After investigation, police submitted challan against the accused-persons for offences under Sections 458, 324, 323, 325/34 IPC. The charges were framed against the accused-persons and accused-persons denied all the charges. Before the learned trial Court, the prosecution examined ten witnesses and exhibited several documents. On conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court found the petitioner guilty of the offences under Sections 458, 323/34, 324/34, and 325/34 IPC and sentenced as aforesaid. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate Court and the learned appellate Court also affirmed the findings and conclusions of the learned trial Court. It is in that background that the petitioner has approached the Court. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has not challenged the concurrent findings recorded by learned Courts below to the extent petitioner is held guilty for the offences under Section 458, 323/34, 324/34 and 325/34 IPC. However, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that keeping in view the nature of offence, no fruitful purpose would be served to send the accused to jail to serve out the remaining term of the sentence. Learned counsel therefore submits that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it would be proper to take a lenient view and reduce the sentenced of accused awarded by the learned trial Court to the period already undergone by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that since occurrence of the incident more than nineteen years have lapsed and during the interregnum petitioner has suffered a lot. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed prayer of the petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that both the learned Courts below have recorded finding against the accused-petitioner, and therefore, it is not desirable to reduce the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner. In the alternative, learned Public Prosecutor submits that if the Court feels inclined to reduce the sentence to the extent already undergone by the accused-petitioner, then the victim be adequately compensated. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment, of learned appellate Court as well as learned trial Court and thoroughly scanned record of the case. 7. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment, of learned appellate Court as well as learned trial Court and thoroughly scanned record of the case. 7. As regards the finding of conviction, from a perusal of the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned appellate Court as well as the learned trial Court, it appears that the finding of both the courts below are based on proper appreciation of the prosecution evidence which cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its revisional power under Section 397 of the Code. Interference under the revisional jurisdiction is not warranted sans perversity in the finding of both the courts below. Learned counsel for the accused-revisionist has utterly failed to show any perversity in the finding of the learned trial Court affirmed by the learned appellate Court. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the finding of guilt recorded by both the Courts below which cannot be interfered with by this court in the present revision. 8. However, taking into account the entire fact scenario and the concession made by learned counsel for the petitioner, I feel persuaded to accede to prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner, for granting indulgence to the petitioner, a very vital fact that incident is of more than nineteen years old is very much significant apart from the fact that trial remained pending for more than three years. Thereafter, appeal was decided and the instant revision petition is pending before this Court for last almost thirteen years. It is also noteworthy that during the trial, as well as during the pendency of the appeal and revision petition before this Court, the petitioner was out on bail and he has lived a peaceful life and has spent his time as a law abiding citizen, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by incarcerating him in jail after almost two decades. 9. It is also noteworthy that offence under Section 323 IPC is not of serious nature as legislature has not provided substantive sentence and left at the discretion of the court either to award sentence which may extend to one year or with fine or both. Similarly, for offence under Section 324 IPC, sentence is left at the discretion of the Court, which may extend for three years or with fine or both. Similarly, for offence under Section 324 IPC, sentence is left at the discretion of the Court, which may extend for three years or with fine or both. As regards, offence under Section 325 IPC, although substantive sentence is provided which may extend to seven years imprisonment but there is no quarrel that the same is triable by a magistrate. Thus, invocation of doctrine of reformative theory of punishment deserves due credence in the instant case. 10. Therefore, the revision petition deserves acceptance in part subject to modification that sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner is reduced to already undergone while enhancing the fine from Rs. 1,400/- to Rs. 7,500/-. The accused-petitioner is directed to deposit amount of fine of Rs. 7,500/- within three months from the date of the order before the learned trial Court. Upon deposition of the requisite amount, while adjusting Rs. 1,400/- as fine imposed by the learned trial Court, remaining amount of Rs. 6,100/- be paid to the victim, Sheyochand by the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court is further directed to ensure disbursement of the amount of Rs. 6,100/- to victim, Sheyochand, as expeditiously as possible by serving a notice to him for collecting the amount. 11. In view of above discussion, revision petition is allowed in part as indicated herein above. 12. The accused-petitioner is on bail and therefore his bail-bonds are cancelled.