Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2066 (RAJ)

Anil v. State

2019-07-30

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2019
JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Garg, J. - Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 29.09.2018 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Chittorgarh (herienafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Sessions Case No. 32/2016 by which the learned Judge convicted the appellants for offences under Section 393 and 307 IPC and sentenced as under :- Offence Punishment 307 IPC Four years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergone one year simple imprisonment 393 IPC Three years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergone six months imprisonment 2. Brief facts of the case are that a written report was lodged by complainant Manohar on 05.08.2016 before the Police Station Sambhupura to the effect that today he heard cries of a woman and upon reaching there he saw two persons trying to snatch silver chain from the woman. He caught hold of the persons who told their names as Anil and Vishnu. 3. On the basis of aforesaid report, FIR No. 22/2016 was registered about commission of offences punishable under Sections 307, 393 IPC. After due investigation, police filed charge sheet against the accused-appellants under Sections 307, 393 IPC before the competent court wherefrom the case was committed to the trial Court. Thereafter, the charges of the case were framed. The accused appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 06 witnesses and various documents were also exhibited. Thereafter, statement of appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. No witness was examined on the defence side. 5. After scrutiny of the material on record and evidence produced by the prosecution as well as statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., learned trial Court vide judgment and order dated 29.09.2018 convicted and sentenced him as stated hereinabove. 6. Being aggrieved with the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court, the accused-appellants have preferred this criminal appeal before this Court. 7. At the threshold, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the sentence awarded to the appellants was suspended vide order dated 14.02.2019, however, the accused appellants could not furnish requisite bail bonds and sureties and continue to remain behind the bars till date. 7. At the threshold, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the sentence awarded to the appellants was suspended vide order dated 14.02.2019, however, the accused appellants could not furnish requisite bail bonds and sureties and continue to remain behind the bars till date. It is submitted that the appellants are not challenging the finding of conviction but since the accused appellants are poor persons and have remained in custody for about one and half years, therefore, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the appellants 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 appellants. The learned PP submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused appellants 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 judgment passed by the trial court regarding conviction of the accused-appellants. 10. So far as reduction of sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused-appellants is concerned, the incident in the present case took place in the year 2016, i.e. more than three years back. During pendency of this appeal and during trial, the accusedappellants have remained behind the bars for about one and half years till date. A sentence should neither be too lenient nor disproportionately severe. The former looses its deterrent effect and the latter has a tendency to tempt the offenders to commit a more serious offence. It is the duty of the court to impose a proper punishment depending upon the degree of criminality and desirability to impose such punishment as a measure of social necessity as a means of deterring other potential offenders. Punishment to be proper, effective and purposeful must fit not only the crime but also the criminal. 11. Since it is case of theft as well as attempt to murder, therefore, accused appellants do not deserve much sympathy. However, since they have remained behind the bars for more about one and half years so also undergone mental as well as physical agony of protracted trial, some leniency can be shown to some extent. 12. 11. Since it is case of theft as well as attempt to murder, therefore, accused appellants do not deserve much sympathy. However, since they have remained behind the bars for more about one and half years so also undergone mental as well as physical agony of protracted trial, some leniency can be shown to some extent. 12. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer of the learned Counsel for the accused appellants that accused appellants be sentenced to the period already undergone, cannot be accepted. However, if their sentence for the offences under Section 307 & 393 IPC is reduced from four years and three years SI to two years SI respectively for both offences, it would meet the ends of justice. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the appellants' conviction and sentence for offence under Section 307 & 393 IPC, the sentence awarded to them is reduced to two years S.I respectively, however the amount of fine is enhanced from Rs. 1000/- to Rs.2,000/- on each count, in total Rs.4,000/- alongwith default stipulation as ordered by the trial court. 14. The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.