Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 455 (RAJ)

Bajrang Lal Sharma v. State Of Rajasthan

2018-02-06

P.K.LOHRA

body2018
JUDGMENT : P.K. Lohra, J. 1. Accused-appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., 1973 to assail impugned judgment dated 30th of June, 2014, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, No.1, Sri Ganganagar (for short, 'learned trial Court'), whereby learned trial Court by giving benefit of doubt acquitted him for offence under Section 302 IPC but convicted for offence under Section 304-B IPC and handed down sentence of ten years' rigorous imprisonment. 2. In brief, facts of the case are that complainant Krishanlal submitted a report at Police Station Ghamurwali stating, inter-alia, that his daughter Indra Devi, who was married with accused appellant Bajrang alias Chimnaram five years back, was harassed by in-laws and was probably hanged to death on 09.10.2010. It was alleged that the accused-appellant was demanding ring and had given threatening to his son also. The complainant also averred in the complaint that before they reached to the spot or the police could reach, body of his daughter was taken down from strangulation noose without congregating villagers. On the basis of said report, FIR No. 140/2010 was registered for offence under Section 304-B, 498-A IPC. 3. After investigation, police filed charge-sheet against accused appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Padampur from where the case was committed to the Court of learned Special Sessions Judge (Women Atrocity & Dowry Cases), Sri Ganganagar and then transferred to learned trial Court. The learned trial Court, took cognizance and framed charge against accused-appellant for offence under Section 302, in alternate 304-B IPC. On denial of charge, accused-appellant was put on trial. 4. In order to prove charge against accused-appellant, prosecution examined sixteen witnesses and exhibited twenty three documents. Subsequently, statements of accused-appellant were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 and, in support of his case, exhibited six documents. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court convicted appellant as aforesaid. 5. Against the judgment of learned trial Court, convicting the accused-appellant under Section 304-B IPC and under Section 302 IPC, complainant Kishan Lal filed D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 650/2014 before this Court for modifying the judgment of trial Court but the said appeal came to be dismissed by the Division Bench vide judgment dated 02.09.2016. 5. Against the judgment of learned trial Court, convicting the accused-appellant under Section 304-B IPC and under Section 302 IPC, complainant Kishan Lal filed D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 650/2014 before this Court for modifying the judgment of trial Court but the said appeal came to be dismissed by the Division Bench vide judgment dated 02.09.2016. Similarly, Criminal Leave to Appeal No. 215/2014, filed before the Division Bench of this Court on the ground of inadequacy of the sentence under Section 304-B IPC and acquittal under Section 302, was dismissed on 31.07.2017. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, does challenge the conviction of appellant but prays that keeping in view the fact that appellant has already undergone substantial period of sentence, i.e. more than eight years, out of ten years' awarded to him, it would be appropriate to grant some indulgence in the matter of sentence. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that, in totality of circumstances, sentence awarded to the appellant be altered by reducing it to the extent he has already undergone. Learned counsel has placed reliance on following judgments: (1) State of Karnataka v. Dattaraj & Ors. [2016 Crl. L.J. 1434]. (2) Sher Singh alias Partapa v. State of Haryana [ (2015) 3 SCC 724 ] (3) Manohar Lal v. State of Haryana [ (2014) 9 SCC 645 ]. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. Learned Public Prosecutor would contend that there is reliable, clinching and trustworthy evidence on record to prove that the accused has committed the offence and, therefore, the prosecution has proved the charge levelled against the accused-appellant as such no mercy can be shown even by reducing the sentence imposed on the accused-appellant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and thoroughly scanned the entire record. 9. Looking to the abandonment of challenge to indictment/conviction of accused-appellant by the learned counsel for appellant, the only question which requires consideration is quantum of punishment. In this behalf, facts are admitted that appellant has already undergone sentence for substantial period of more than eight years out of ten years' imprisonment awarded. Therefore, taking into account the fact that appellant has already suffered minimum sentence prescribed for the offence, i.e. 7 years, it would be appropriate to grant some indulgence to him. In this behalf, facts are admitted that appellant has already undergone sentence for substantial period of more than eight years out of ten years' imprisonment awarded. Therefore, taking into account the fact that appellant has already suffered minimum sentence prescribed for the offence, i.e. 7 years, it would be appropriate to grant some indulgence to him. The judgments on which learned counsel for appellant has placed reliance are touching the merits of the case, therefore, it is desirable to consider these legal precedents. 10. There remains no quarrel that the appellant has already served the sentence of more than eight years, and therefore, in my considered opinion, the ends of justice would be served by reducing the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court to the extent of sentence already undergone by him. 11. The criminal appeal, thus, deserves to be and is hereby accepted in part. While maintaining the conviction of appellant, as recorded by learned trial court for offence under Section 304-B IPC, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The appellant, who is under incarceration, may be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.