Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1563 (RAJ)

Ramji Lal Jat v. State of Rajasthan

2018-07-24

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2018
JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Garg, J. - Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 27.1.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Churu (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court') by which the Appellate Court upheld the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First class, Churu (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') dated 4.10.2017 whereby, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the present petitioners as under:- Under Section 341 I.P.C. One month S.I Under Section 323 I.P.C. Three months S.I and fine of Rs. 500/- each Under Section 325/34 I.P.C. One year S.I and fine of Rs. 1500/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo three months S.I 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up is that the complainant Om Prakash submitted a written report before the Police Station Ratan Nagar to the effect that on 2.1.2005 in the morning at about 9 AM, when his father Surja Ram was returning from the house of Durga Ram Jat, accused Ramjilal, Sulochana, Sharda and Harkauri having axe, Gandasi, Lathi etc attacked his father Surja Ram and caused grievous injuries to him upon raising hue and cry, the complainant. Ram Pratap and Teeju Devi intervened and rescued Surja Ram. 3. On the basis of the above report police registered a case and started investigation. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the present petitioner. Thereafter, charges were framed against the accused for offences under Sections 341, 323/34, 325/34 I.P.C. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses and got exhibited 11 documents. The statement of accused-petitioners were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 and one witness DW/1 Dana Ram was examined in defence. 5. After considering the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the material available on record, the petitioners/accused were convicted and sentenced for offences as mentioned above. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 4.10.2017 passed by the learned Court, an appeal was preferred before the learned Sessions Judge, Churu which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 27.1.2012. 7. 5. After considering the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the material available on record, the petitioners/accused were convicted and sentenced for offences as mentioned above. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 4.10.2017 passed by the learned Court, an appeal was preferred before the learned Sessions Judge, Churu which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 27.1.2012. 7. At the threshold learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are not challenging the finding of both the Courts below but it is submitted that at the time of incident, accused Ramji Lal was aged about 38 years, Harkauri was 60 years and Sulochana was 35 years of age and during this period, Ramji Lal has remained in custody for about 65 days, Harkaur and Sulochana both remained in custody for 9 days and another accused lady has already been acquitted by the Court below, therefore, it is prayed that after lapse of so many years, it would not be proper to sent the petitioners to custody and accordingly, the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner for the aforesaid offences may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 8. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioners nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case. 9. I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgments passed by both the Courts below regarding conviction of the accused-petitioners. However, undisputedly, the petitioners have so far undergone a period of 65 days and 9 days respectively in custody so also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the petitioner has remained behind the bars for some time, it will he just and proper if the sentence awarded by the Trial Court for offence under Sections 341, 323, 325/34 I.P.C. is reduced to the period already undergone while enhancing the amount of fine imposed for offence under Section 323 from Rs. 500/- to 1500/- each and from Rs. 1500/- to Rs. 3000/- each for offence under Section 325/34 I.P.C., in total Rs. 13500/-. 10. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. 500/- to 1500/- each and from Rs. 1500/- to Rs. 3000/- each for offence under Section 325/34 I.P.C., in total Rs. 13500/-. 10. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioners' conviction and sentence for offence under Sections 341, 323, 325/34 I.P.C. the sentenced awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone. However, for offence under Section 323 I.P.C. while maintaining the conviction, the amount of fine is enhanced from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1500/- each and for offence under Section 325/34 I.P.C., the amount of fine is enhanced from Rs. 1500/- to Rs. 3000/- each. The aforesaid fine shall be deposited by the petitioners in the Trial Court within three months from the date of this order, and on such deposit, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- shall be disbursed to the injured Surja Ram. In default of such deposit within the stipulated period, this revision petition shall stand dismissed and the petitioners shall be sent to jail to serve remaining sentence. 11. The record of Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court be sent back forthwith.