Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2017 DIGILAW 1466 (SC)

Rampratap v. State of Rajasthan

2017-09-18

J.CHELAMESWAR, S.ABDUL NAZEER

body2017
JUDGMENT S. Abdul Nazeer, J. Leave granted. 2. The appellant, Rampratap was convicted by the trial court under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The other appellants, namely, Phool Chand, Smt. Bhagwati Devi and Ram Pal were acquitted by the Sessions Judge for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 341, 323 and 302/149 IPC. Being aggrieved by his conviction, Rampratap filed an appeal before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench) in D.B.Criminal Appeal No.183 of 2014. The State of Rajasthan also filed D.B. Criminal Appeal No.555 of 2014 challenging the judgment of the Sessions Court, acquitting Phool Chand, Smt. Bhagwati Devi and Ram Pal. The High Court passed a common judgment and order dated 4.1.2017 converting the offence from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-I IPC insofar as Rampratap is concerned and he was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment and to pay a fine of L 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine he was directed to further undergo one year additional imprisonment. The appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan against Phool Chand, Smt. Bhagwati Devi and Ram Pal was allowed and they were held guilty of offences under Section 323 IPC. Since the occurrence had taken place in the year 2009, they were directed to be released on probation for a period of one year subject to furnishing personal bonds and bonds of sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court with an undertaking that during the period of probation, they shall be of good conduct and peace. The appellants have challenged the legality and correctness of the said judgments in these appeals. 3. On 27.3.2017, this Court issued notice limited to the question of the quantum of sentence. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the appellant, Rampratap was convicted by the High Court on the ground that he had exceeded the right of self defence. He has been in jail for the past nine years with remission. It is only after mutual pelting of stones that took place between the accused and the victims, two injuries were caused on the head of the deceased Richhpal. Learned counsel has taken us through the judgment and the materials placed on record. Therefore, she prays for reduction of sentence in so far as Rampratap is concerned. It is only after mutual pelting of stones that took place between the accused and the victims, two injuries were caused on the head of the deceased Richhpal. Learned counsel has taken us through the judgment and the materials placed on record. Therefore, she prays for reduction of sentence in so far as Rampratap is concerned. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State opposes reduction of sentence. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. It is evident that the deceased and witnesses PW2, PW3 and PW4 while passing in front of the house of the accused, initiated pelting of stones due to which one of the appellants, Bhagwati Devi, suffered injuries on the leg which resulted into fracture of Fibula. Injuries were first caused by the complainant party by pelting stones. Rampratap, being young member of family, in consequence of injuries caused to his mother, caused lathi blow to the deceased Richhpal. It is evident that Rampratap exceeded the right of self defence. As stated above, after mutual pelting of stones that took place between the parties, Rampratap caused two injuries in quick succession on the head of deceased Richhpal. The other accused persons have also suffered simple injuries due to stone pelting. Keeping this in view, the High Court converted the conviction of the appellant, Rampratap from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I of IPC and sentenced him to ten years of imprisonment. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that ten years rigorous imprisonment would appear to be too harsh. 6. The appellant, Rampratap has been in jail for a period of eight years. Therefore, we reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant, Rampratap. 7. The appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms.