Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1476 (RAJ)

Ramesh @ Nehru Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan

2018-07-12

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2018
JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Garg, J. - Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 29.9.1989 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Sirohi in Sessions Case No. 53/1986 by which the learned Judg convicted the appellants for offence under Section 411 I.P.C. and awarded, sentence for a period of two years simple imprisonment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 9.4.1986, SHO Radheyshyam received an information that a dead body was lying near Bagnala puma between Mt Abu and Abu Road. Upon reaching the spot, it was found that the person had died 5-7 days back and the body was in a decomposed condition. 3. The police registered a case for offence under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. and started investigation. After investigation, the police arrested five accused persons and filed challan against them before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Abu road. Then the case was committed for trial before the District and Session Judge, Sirohi who framed charges for offences under Section 120B, 302, 386 and 201 I.P.C. against accused Mohd. Jafar, Ms. Amrita Kaur, Sikander Khan and Rakesh Moha and accused Ramesh @ Nehru was charged for offence under Section 411 I.P.C. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 28 witnesses and various documents were also exhibited. Thereafter, statements of appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 were recorded. 5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 29.9.1989 convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offence as indicated above. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have preferred this appeal. 6. At the threshold, the learned Counsel for the appellants submits that appellants are not challenging the finding of conviction arrived at by the learned Trial Court but submits that the appellant Sikander has remained behind the bars for about six months and appellant Ramesh alias Nehru has remained behind the bars for about one year and two months, therefore, the sentence awarded to them may be reduced to the period already undergone while maintaining the conviction. 7. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellants and submitted that there is neither any reason to interfere with the finding and the sentence awarded to the accused appellant by the learned Court below, nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case. 7. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellants and submitted that there is neither any reason to interfere with the finding and the sentence awarded to the accused appellant by the learned Court below, nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case. Learned Public Prosecutor fairly conceded that no State appeal was filed against the acquittal for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. 8. I have considered the arguments raised on behalf of the appellants and perused the judgment passed by the Trial Court regarding conviction of the accused-appellants. 9. Having heard the learned Counsels and having examined the record, so far as the conviction of the appellants is concerned, this Court finds no ground for interference in the findings against the appellants which are based on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record. So far as the aspect of sentence is concerned, it is noticed that the accusation related to the incident of the year 1986; and the appellants have faced this case for about 32 years and have remained in custody for more than six months and one year respectively, Therefore no useful purpose would be served in sending the appellants behind the bars after this length of time. 10. This Court in the case of Sukhdeo Singh vs. State, reported in 1987 RCC 233 while upholding the conviction of the accused under Section 411 I.P.C. reduced the sentence to the period already undergone as under:- "In the result, the revision petition is party allowed and the conviction of the accused-petitioner Sukhdeo singh under Section 411 I.P.C. is maintained. However, the sentence of 6 months rigorous imprisonment recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is reduced to the period of his custody." Similarly, this Court in the case of Bhoj Raj vs. State of Rajasthan, (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 66/1995) decided on 26.3.2010 held as under: "So far the aspect of sentence is concerned, it is noticed that the accusation related to the incident of the year 1989; and petitioner has faced this case for about 21 years and has remained in custody for about 14 days. Nothing else has been placed before the Court to justify further imprisonment of the petitioner in relation to this length of time. Nothing else has been placed before the Court to justify further imprisonment of the petitioner in relation to this length of time. In the totality of circumstances, this Court is of opinion that interest of justice shall be served if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to that of the period already undergone. 7. Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed; while the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 411 I.P.C. is maintained, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone. The petitioner is on ball and need not surrender. The bail bonds stand cancelled." 11. In the totality of circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice shall be served if the sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to that of the period already undergone. 12. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 411 I.P.C., the sentence awarded to each of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone. The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand cancelled.