Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 911 (RAJ)

Jagroop Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2016-06-30

P.K.LOHRA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mr. P.K. Lohra, J. 1. Appellant has laid this appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.PC. to challenge the judgment dated 21.06.1997 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar (for short, `learned trial Court') in sessions Case No. 72/1992, whereby appellant was convicted for offence under Section 324 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Learned trial Court handed down sentence of 3 years rigorous imprisonment to the appellant with fine of Rs. 3,000/- in relation to offence under Section 324 IPC. In default of payment of fine, it was further ordered that appellant shall undergo 1 year simple imprisonment. In respect of indictment of the appellant for offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, he was sentenced for 6 months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo sentence for 2 months simple imprisonment. 2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that on 09.05.1992 at 1.15 P.M., complainant Sardara Singh orally informed SHO, Police Station, Rawla that he purchased an agricultural land measuring 20 bighas from Tirekhan about seven years back and out of 12 bighas of land, at his behest, Jagroop Singh S/o Nakshatra Singh is cultivating. Alleging some acrimony with Jagroop Singh for the aforesaid land, it is stated in the FIR that Jagroop Singh while armed with 12 bore rifle (gun) fired at him. When Jagroop Singh fired bullet from 12 bore rifle (gun), complainant's wife came to his rescue and therefore, the gunshot was diverted towards his wife, injuring calf of her right leg and its pellet/splinter also caused injury on his right leg. 3. On the basis of oral information, FIR No. 85/92 was registered for the offences under Sections 307-341-34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Both complainant and his wife were subjected to medical examination and upon completion of the investigation, charge-sheet for the offences under Section 307-341-323 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act was submitted before Judicial Magistrate. Anoopgarh on 17.09.1992. Later on, the case was committed to the learned trial Court. 4. Learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant for offences under Sections 307 and 323 IPC as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act. The appellant denied the charges, therefore, he was put to trial. 5. Prosecution, in support of the case, examined 5 witnesses including P.W.4 Dr. Balwant Singh. 4. Learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant for offences under Sections 307 and 323 IPC as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act. The appellant denied the charges, therefore, he was put to trial. 5. Prosecution, in support of the case, examined 5 witnesses including P.W.4 Dr. Balwant Singh. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 6. Learned trial Court, thereafter, heard final arguments and by the impugned judgment convicted the appellant for offences under Section 324 and Section 27 of the Arms Act and awarded sentences aforesaid. Learned trial Court, on critical analysis of the prosecution evidence as well as the medical evidence, altered the charge under Section 307 IPC to 324 IPC by recording a specific finding that bodily injury suffered by the victim is not capable to cause death. For the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, learned trial Court recorded a definite finding that the charge is proved against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. M.K. Garg, submits that due to passage of time since occurrence of incident, some latitude be granted to the appellant in the matter of punishment as the appellant is not questioning his conviction for the aforesaid offences. Learned counsel would contend that the incident occurred on 02.05.1992 and since then more than 24 years have passed and therefore, the sentence awarded to the appellant for both the offences be altered to the extent he has already undergone 30 days sentence and under Section 324 IPC, legislature has not mandated for awarding substantive sentence, instead it provides maximum sentence for three years or with fine or with both. Learned counsel for the appellant has therefore urged that taking into account the massage of time and the fact that appellant has already undergone 30 days imprisonment, sentence awarded to him be reduced to the extent he has already undergone. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that by this time, the appellant has attained the age of above 55 years and therefore, it would not be appropriate to incarcerate him in Jail, more particularly, when during trial and pendency of this appeal, he remained on bail. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that by this time, the appellant has attained the age of above 55 years and therefore, it would not be appropriate to incarcerate him in Jail, more particularly, when during trial and pendency of this appeal, he remained on bail. Leaned counsel has also submitted that there is no adverse report against the appellant, so far as his antecedents are 35 concerned after his conviction and therefore, some latitude in the matter of punishment is desirable from the Court. 8. Per contra, Mr. Bhardwaj, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that looking to the gravity of the injuries suffered by the victim-complainant, it would not be appropriate to reduce the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court. Mr. Bhardwaj further submits that appellant is also found guilty of offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, therefore, any leniency in the matter of punishment is not desirable. In the alternative, lastly, learned Public Prosecutor would contend that if sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced then at least victim's family be adequately compensated for the injuries suffered by them. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the learned trial Court has imposed fine of Rs. 3,500/- for both the offences and out of which 2,500/- is awarded as compensation to the victim but the said amount of fine has not been deposited by the appellant before the learned trial Court, therefore, the amount of the be enhanced adequately to compensate the victims. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and thoroughly scanned the record of the case. 10. The instant case at the time of lodging of FIR was projected to be a case of serious offence, i.e. attempt to murder envisaged under Section 307 IPC but then the learned trial Court upon close scrutiny of the entire prosecution evidence has completely repudiated the prosecution story so as to indict the accused-appellant for offence under Section 307 IPC. As a natter of fact, the learned trial Court, after critical analysis of the evidence, has found that the appellant is guilty of offence punishable under Section 124 IPC. 11. Section 324 IPC defines voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. As a natter of fact, the learned trial Court, after critical analysis of the evidence, has found that the appellant is guilty of offence punishable under Section 124 IPC. 11. Section 324 IPC defines voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. The legislature in its wisdom has prescribed punishment for the said offence, namely, imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. A bare reading of Section 324 IPC clearly and unequivocally reveals that it is solely within the discretion of the Court either to award a substantive sentence to the accused upon recording finding of guilt or to impose fine or hand down the sentence of imprisonment as well as fine. 12. Taking into account the fact that punishment is solely within the discretion of the Court and the other mitigating circumstances, viz., that incident is almost 24 years old and the accused-petitioner has already undergone sentence for 30 days, I feel inclined to grant indulgence to the petitioner for reducing the sentence. It is also noteworthy that at the time of commission of offence, appellant was hardly 32 years of age and now by passage of time, he has crossed the age of 55 years is also a mitigating factor which cannot lose sight of this Court for acceding to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant. However, the submission made by learned Public Prosecutor that amount of fine imposed by the learned trial Court be enhanced appears to be reasonable. There is substance in the submission of learned Public Prosecutor particularly, in the wake of the fact that appellant has not deposited fine imposed by learned trial Court of which Rs. 2,500/- was to be paid to the victims as compensation. 13. In view of above discussion, the instant appeal is allowed in part and while maintaining conviction of the petitioner for offence under Section 324 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, the sentence handed down to him by the learned trial Court is reduced to 30 days, i.e., the period he has already undergone. The amount of fine imposed by the learned trial Court for a sum of Rs. 3,500/- is enhanced to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-. The appellant shall deposit the total amount of fine i.e. Rs. 10,000/- within three months from today. The amount of fine imposed by the learned trial Court for a sum of Rs. 3,500/- is enhanced to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-. The appellant shall deposit the total amount of fine i.e. Rs. 10,000/- within three months from today. Upon deposition of the amount of fine while retaining Rs. 1,000/- for remittance to Government Treasury, the remaining amount of Rs. 9,000/- be disbursed by the learned trial Court to the victims as expeditiously as possible. Learned trial Court for that purpose may serve notice to the victims/family member for collecting the aforesaid amount of fine as compensation.