Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 849 (RAJ)

Udailal S/o Shri Lehru v. State of Rajasthan

2018-03-23

P.K.LOHRA

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Accused-appellants have filed this appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. to challenge impugned judgment dated 24th of August, 2016, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No.3, Chittorgarh (for short, 'learned trial Court’), whereby appellant No.1 Udailal is convicted for offence under Sections 120-B, 341, 332, 333, 353, 225, 307/34 IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, and appellant No.2 Radheyshyam under Sections 120-B, 244 IPC and they have been sentenced to maximum period of ten years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 120-B IPC with fine of different denominations under different sections with the direction to run the sentences concurrently. The sentences handed down to both the appellants for charged offences are as under: Appellant No.1 – Udailal 120B IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs.10,000. In default of payment of fine to undergo six months’ simple imprisonment. 341 IPC Simple imprisonment for one month with a fine of Rs.500. In default of payment of fine to undergo three days’ simple imprisonment. 332 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with a fine of Rs.1000. In default of payment of fine to undergo three months’ simple imprisonment. 333 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with a fine of Rs.3000. In default of payment of fine to undergo three months’ simple imprisonment. 353 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 2 years with a fine of Rs.2000. In default of payment of fine to undergo one month’s simple imprisonment. 225 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 2 years with a fine of Rs.1000. In default of payment of fine to undergo one month’s simple imprisonment. 307/34 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs.10000. In default of payment of fine to undergo six months’ simple imprisonment. 3/25 of Arms Act Simple imprisonment for 2 years with a fine of Rs.1000. In default of payment of fine to undergo one month’s simple imprisonment. Appellant No.2 – Radheyshyam 120B IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs.10000. In default of payment of fine to undergo six months’ simple imprisonment. 224 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 2 years with a fine of Rs.2000. In default of payment of fine to undergo one month’s simple imprisonment. 2. Appellant No.2 – Radheyshyam 120B IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs.10000. In default of payment of fine to undergo six months’ simple imprisonment. 224 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 2 years with a fine of Rs.2000. In default of payment of fine to undergo one month’s simple imprisonment. 2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that FIR No.205/11 was registered at Police Station Rashmi on 12.12.2011 on the report of Constable Shivlal stating therein that he and another Constable Indramal, being members of Chalani Guard Party, had taken appellant-prisoner Radheyshyam from Sub-Jail Kapasan to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Rashmi in connection with a criminal case in which Radheyshyam was facing trial and when they were returning back on motorcycle, two persons riding on a motorcycle came behind them and gave a lathi blow as a result of which they all fell on the ground. The lathi blow was received by Shivlal on his head and when Constable Indramal caught hold of Radheyshyam, appellant Udailal taken out a country-made pistol from his pocket and fired on Indramal with the intent to kill him, which hit him on the hip-joint and as both of them sustained wounds, appellant Udailal and his companion taken away appellant No.2 Radheyshyam with them. After investigation, police filed charge-sheet for offence under Sections 341, 323, 325, 332, 333, 353, 307, 224, 225, 120-B IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act against appellant No.1 Udailal and other accused Gotu, Suresh and Radheyshyam under Section 341, 323, 325, 332, 333, 353, 307, 224, 225, 120-B IPC in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kapasan. The concerned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions from where it was transferred to learned trial Court. The learned trial Court heard on charge and framed charge against accused appellant Udailal for offence under Sections 120B, 341, 332, 333, 353, 307/34, 225 IPC and Section 3/25 Arms Act, against accused Suresh Chandra under Section 120-B, 341, 332, 333, 353, 307/34, 225 IPC, against Gotulal under Section 120-B and against appellant No.2 Radheyshyam under Section 224, 120-B IPC. During trial, in order to prove charge against accused persons, prosecution examined as many as 22 witnesses and exhibited 65 documents. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. who in their defence examined 7 witnesses and exhibited 24 documents. During trial, in order to prove charge against accused persons, prosecution examined as many as 22 witnesses and exhibited 65 documents. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. who in their defence examined 7 witnesses and exhibited 24 documents. Thereafter, final arguments were heard by the learned trial Court. 3. The learned trial Court, after appreciation of evidence and material available on record, found that offences against appellants stood fully established and considering their culpability they were held guilty and sentenced as aforesaid. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the accused-appellants has not challenged the finding recorded by learned trial Court to the extent the appellants are held guilty for the offence. However, learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that the appellants have already suffered substantial part of the sentences awarded to them, therefore, sentences awarded to them be reduced to the period already undergone. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that since occurrence of the incident more than six years have elapsed and during interregnum the appellants have suffered a lot, as such, a lenient view in the matter is desirable. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer of appellants. Learned Public Prosecutor would contend that there is reliable, clinching and trustworthy evidence on record to prove that the appellants have committed the offence and prosecution has proved the charge levelled against them beyond reasonable doubt, it is not desirable to grant any reprieve to the appellants in the matter, as such, no mercy can be shown towards them even by reducing the sentence. Learned Public Prosecutor would contend that taking into account the entire fact scenario, the appeal is liable to be nixed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and gone through the record of the case. 7. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment in conjunction with the record of the case, I am unable to find any illegality or impropriety in appreciation of evidence by the learned trial Court. As a matter of fact, charge against accused-appellants was framed and the learned trial Court, after thoroughly examining the evidence of prosecution witnesses and other evidence has rightly found the accused-appellants guilty for the aforesaid offences. 8. As a matter of fact, charge against accused-appellants was framed and the learned trial Court, after thoroughly examining the evidence of prosecution witnesses and other evidence has rightly found the accused-appellants guilty for the aforesaid offences. 8. Now, adverting to the submission of learned counsel for the appellants for reducing the sentence, it may be observed that the learned trial Court, after scrutinizing the material available on record, has recorded a definite finding of guilt against appellants, therefore, I am not persuaded to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the learned trial Court. Otherwise also, the learned counsel for appellants has conceded on the finding of guilt recorded against the accused-appellants. However, taking into account the concession made by learned counsel for the appellants and the significant fact that out of the maximum sentence of ten years awarded to the accused-appellants, by now appellants Udailal and Radheyshyam have already suffered imprisonment for more than six years and three months, in my opinion, in the backdrop of overall facts and circumstances of the case, reducing the sentence of the appellants to the period already undergone by them and ordering payment of fine amount to the victims would meet the ends of justice. 9. The criminal appeal is, accordingly, partly allowed and while upholding the conviction of appellants, recorded by learned trial Court, the substantive sentences awarded to them are reduced to the period already undergone by them. The appellants are ordered to be released upon their depositing the amount of fine imposed by learned trial Court, which in the case of appellant Udailal comes to Rs.28,500 and in case of appellant Radheyshyam to Rs.12,000 respectively, if they are not required in any other case. 10. The learned trial Court is further directed to pay the amount of fine, on realization, to the victims (injured) equally without any delay as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C.