Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1393 (RAJ)

Ummed Singh v. State of Rajasthan, Through PP

2019-05-08

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 18.06.2018 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Barmer (for short the trial court) in Sessions Case No. 74/2012 whereby, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant for offences under Section 341, 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced as under:- 341 IPC - One month S.I. and fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to undergo 15 days S.I. 323 IPC One year S.I and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo one month S.I. 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of fine to further undergo three months S.I. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Khiram Ram submitted a written report before the Police Station Kotwali, Barmer alleging therein that on 20.04.2012 at about 12:30 PM, he was standing at hotel of Gulabji, at that time Jetha Ram was coming on a tractor with tank. The petitioner Ummed Singh was drunken used abusive language and stopped the tractor. When the complainant tried to rescue Jetha Ram, the accused abusing him hit with a stone and caused injury on the head and left hand. 3. The police registered a case for offences under Section 341, 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and started investigation. The police after investigation, filed a challan against the present appellant for the aforesaid offences. Thereafter, charges of the case were framed, wherein, the appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and various documents were also exhibited. Thereafter, statement of appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. 5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 18.06.2018 convicted the present appellant for Section 341, 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as mentioned earlier. 6. At the threshold, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the learned trial court has awarded the maximum sentence for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act i.e. five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 6. At the threshold, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the learned trial court has awarded the maximum sentence for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act i.e. five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-, and the accused appellant has already served total sentence of 02 years, 01 month and 24 days as on 23.03.2019 therefore, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned PP submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused appellant nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case. 8. I have perused the judgment passed by the court below regarding conviction of the accused-appellant. As per the communication received from the office of Superintendent District Jail, Barmer, the appellant has so far undergone a period of 02 years 01 month and 24 days as on 23.03.2019 in custody, so also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the appellant has remained behind the bars for substantial period now, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is reduced to the period already undergone by him. So far as the sentence of fine is concerned, the trial court has imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment of three months which is not liable to be interfered. Similarly, no interference is called for in the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court for offences under Section 341 and 323 IPC because the appellant has already served the sentence of said offences. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioners conviction for offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the sentence awarded to him is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioners conviction for offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the sentence awarded to him is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. However, the amount of fine imposed upon the appellant for offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is maintained. The Suspension of sentence application No. 254/2019 also stands disposed of.