Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 106 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Vinod Kumar

2018-01-08

P.K.LOHRA

body2018
JUDGMENT : P.K. Lohra, J. Appellant-State has preferred one criminal appeal under Section 377 Cr.P.C. to question adequacy of the sentence awarded to accused-respondents and another criminal leave to appeal to question acquittal of some of the respondents for offence under Sections 147, 447 & 308 IPC and other respondents for offence under Sections 147, 308, 447, 325/149 & 323/149 IPC. Impugned judgment dated 23rd of January, 2017, passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Hanumangarh (for short, 'learned trial Court') is common in both the appeals, therefore, these appeals are heard together and disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The factual matrix, giving rise to these appeals, is that injured Chaitram gave a Parcha Bayan to Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police at Government Hospital, Pilibanga, inter-alia, alleging therein that on 21st of July, 2013, at about 09:30AM, he, along with his wife and children, was working in the agricultural field. The Parcha Bayan further unfurled that when all of them were undertaking the requisite work, accused-respondents Krishna Lal, Vinod Kumar, Syopati Devi, Rameshwari Devi, Sunita, Ramu Devi and five others, well armed with lathis, Kassi and Gandasi, entered into the field and started beating him and his wife Santosh resulting in various grave and serious injuries. It is also stated in the Parcha Bayan that Kalu Ram gave a bite to his wife and when they made an alarm the accused persons fled away from scene of occurrence but while fleeing away, Kalu Ram snatched Rs. 2300/-. On the basis of Parcha Bayan, FIR No. 369/2013 for offence under Sections 447, 323 & 143 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. 3. Upon completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against accused-respondents for offence punishable under Sections 308, 323, 325, 447 & 143 IPC before the concerned Magistrate. Thereafter, considering nature of offences, learned Magistrate committed the case to District & Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh by resorting to Section 209 Cr.P.C. Later on, the case was transferred to learned trial Court. The learned trial Court, after hearing arguments on charge, framed charges under Sections 147, 308/149, 329/149, 447 & 325/149 IPC against the accused-respondents and upon their denial they were put on trial. 4. In order to substantiate accusations against accused-respondents, prosecution examined eleven witnesses and also exhibited relevant documents. The learned trial Court, after hearing arguments on charge, framed charges under Sections 147, 308/149, 329/149, 447 & 325/149 IPC against the accused-respondents and upon their denial they were put on trial. 4. In order to substantiate accusations against accused-respondents, prosecution examined eleven witnesses and also exhibited relevant documents. After completion of the evidence of prosecution, statements of accused-respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court, after hearing final arguments, indicted accused-respondents Vinod Kumar & Krishna Lal for offence under Sections 325, 323 read with Section 34 IPC but acquitted them for offence under Sections 447, 308 & 147 IPC by extending benefit of doubt. Likewise, accused-respondents Rameshwari Devi, Syopati Devi & Sunita were also acquitted for the aforesaid offences by extending benefit of doubt. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor, while arguing on Criminal Appeal No. 814/2017, submits that learned trial Court, while recording findings of guilt against accused-respondents Vinod Kumar & Krishna Lal for offence under Sections 325, 323 read with Section 34 IPC, has awarded adequate sentence to them commensurating with the offence. Learned Public Prosecutor has further argued that looking to the proven delinquencies of the accused-respondents, learned trial Court ought have extended them benefit of probation. It is in that background, learned Public Prosecutor has argued that in the instant appeal accused respondents are liable to be handed down substantive sentence. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondents contends that learned trial Court has taken a just decision of extending benefit of probation to the respondents by resorting to Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short, 'Act of 1958'). It is also argued by learned counsel for the respondents that, while granting benefit of probation to the respondents, learned trial Court has taken into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case and cause of acrimony between the rival parties, which was a land dispute. It is also submitted by learned counsel that indictment of accused-respondents was for grave and serious offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and therefore, it would be appropriate to interfere with the discretion of the learned trial Court in this appeal. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment. 8. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment. 8. There remains no quarrel that accused-respondents are convicted for offence punishable under Sections 325 & 323 read with Section 34 IPC. Admittedly, offence under Section 325 IPC nowhere envisages minimum sentence and the maximum punishment provided therein is upto seven years. Likewise, offence under Section 323 IPC also does provide for minimum sentence, and the maximum punishment provided therein is for one year or with fine. Therefore, in that background, benefit of probation to the accused/respondents instead of sentencing them to imprisonment by no stretch of imagination be categorized as infirm or dehors Section 4 of the Act of 1958. 9. It is also noteworthy that learned trial Court, while considering the sentence, has taken note of a very vital fact that both the respondents at the time of commission of offence were in their prime youth and father of accused-respondent Krishna Lal is alive. That apart, the learned trial Court has also considered a significant fact that complainant party and the accused persons are closely related and the cause of acrimony was a trivial land dispute. Thus, the reasons which are forthcoming from the impugned judgment for giving reprieve to the accused-respondents instead of substantive sentence appears to be just and reasonable. In totality, the learned trial Court in the backdrop of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case has rightly laid emphasis on the reformation and rehabilitation of the accused-respondents as a useful and self-reliant members of the Society. The learned trial Court, in my considered opinion, has exercised its discretion judiciously by subjecting accused-respondents to the deleterious effects of jail life. 10. Power of judicial review with the appellate Court on the question of sentence is very limited, and therefore, the said power is to be exercised with great care and circumspection. Sentencing an accused person is a matter of discretion and if such discretion is properly exercised by the trial Court on accepted judicial lines then it would be appropriate for appellate Court to interfere to detriment of the accused sans strong reasons for doing so. Sentencing an accused person is a matter of discretion and if such discretion is properly exercised by the trial Court on accepted judicial lines then it would be appropriate for appellate Court to interfere to detriment of the accused sans strong reasons for doing so. Upon examining the matter, I feel satisfied that the learned trial Court has made sincere endeavor to defuse acrimony between the rival parties and by extending benefit of probation to the accused-respondents it has made an affirmative attempt to infuse amity between rival parties. The approach of the learned trial Court that incarcerating accused-respondents would abate serious acrimony between the parties is a good gesture shown to farther the aims and objects of the Act of 1958. Therefore, I am inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment in this appeal. 11. I have also heard learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondents on Criminal Leave to Appeal No. 401 of 2017. 12. A glance at the findings of learned trial Court makes it abundantly clear that although accused-respondents were charged for offence under Section 308 IPC but the prosecution evidence was falling short of requirements to prove the aforesaid charge. The learned trial Court has recorded a definite finding that none of the seven injuries suffered by Chaitram was on vital part of the body much less dangerous to life. For recording this finding, learned trial Court has placed reliance on the testimony of PW 7 Dr. Rakesh Kumar. Besides this, on appreciation of evidence, the learned trial Court has also noticed serious pitfalls in the prosecution evidence inasmuch as none of the witnesses have attributed specific role to individual accused-respondents for causing injuries. Therefore, in that background, learned trial Court has rightly recorded finding of guilt against accused-respondents Vinod Kumar and Krishanlal for offence under Section 325, 323 read with Section 34 IPC and acquitted the other accused-respondents by extending benefit of doubt. 13. While adverting to Section 447 IPC, the learned trial Court, upon scanning the evidence and other materials available on record, has recorded a definite finding that there is no semblance of proof that scuffle has took place at the field of complainant. Contrary to it, upon examining the evidence, the learned trial Court has prima facie noticed that some overt-act on the part of complainant party to encroach over the land of accused-respondents, cannot be ruled out. Contrary to it, upon examining the evidence, the learned trial Court has prima facie noticed that some overt-act on the part of complainant party to encroach over the land of accused-respondents, cannot be ruled out. Besides that, the learned trial Court has also taken note of a very vital fact that between rival parties there was a dispute of 1 bigha land out of 5 bighas land and that was the bone of contention of the entire episode. Thus, in that background, the learned trial Court acquitted all the accused-respondents for offence under Sections 447 & 147 IPC. 14. Although, learned Public Prosecutor has made sincere endeavor to impress upon the Court that appreciation of evidence is proper but in my opinion by no means appreciation of evidence by the learned trial Court be categorized as infirm or perverse. It is a settled law that while examining appeal against acquittal this Court cannot reappraise the evidence for drawing a different conclusion than what has drawn by the learned trial Court. If the prosecution evidence is scrutinized minutely so as to draw inference that two view are reasonably possible from the very same evidence then unquestionably it cannot be said that prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. In substance, when two view are possible, it is desirable for this Court to reverse the judgment of acquittal simply because the other view is possible. 15. Therefore, in totality, after threadbare examination of the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court, unhesitatingly I record my satisfaction for its approach in appreciation of evidence. The appreciation of evidence by learned trial Court neither perverse nor suffers from any legal infirmity or non-consideration/misappropriate of evidence available on record. Thus, I feel disinclined to grant leave to appeal in the matter and consequently, the same is hereby declined. 16. The upshot of above discussion is that Criminal Appeal No. 814/2017 and Criminal Leave to Appeal No. 401/2017 are hereby dismissed.