Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 511 (RAJ)

CHAINA RAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2019-02-13

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2019
JUDGMENT MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J. 1. The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment dated 28.11.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Hanumangarh, by which the learned trial court convicted the accused-appellant No.2 Surendra Kumar under Section 324 IPC and accused-appellants No.1 & 3, Chaina Ram and Mahendra Kumar for the offence under Section 324/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month additional rigorous imprisonment. All the accused were also convicted for the offence under Section 323/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month additional rigorous imprisonment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that one Bhola Singh gave statement before the S.H.O., Police Station Hanumanggarh Junction, in which he stated that yesterday evening at about 8 O'clock, he along with Ramswaroop alias Chhotu went in a tractor to the field of Sheolal, Ex-Sarpanch. After doing work in the field when they were returning to their house in the night at about 10- 10:30 O'clock, Pawan Kumar met on the way who brought food for them. Suddenly, Chaina Ram along with their sons, namely, Surendra and Mahendra stopped the tractor and started beating them with lathis. When Pawan Kumar and Ramswaroop alias Chhotu intervened, they were also beaten by the accused. On this statement, police registered a case under Sections 341, 323/34 IPC at Police Station Hanumangarh Junction. The FIR so recorded by the police was marked as Ex.P/9. 3. The police started investigation and after due investigation, police filed challan against the present accused-appellants for the offences under Sections 307, 326, 341, 323 IPC before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh. Later on, the case was transferred in the court of Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh. The case was again transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Hanumangarh where the charges of the case were framed against the present appellants. They denied the charges and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses in all. Total 14 documents were exhibited. Thereafter, the statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. They denied the charges and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses in all. Total 14 documents were exhibited. Thereafter, the statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. From the defence side, statements of DW-1 to DW-4 were recorded. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Hanumangarh acquitted the accused-appellants for the offence under Sections 307, 326, 341 IPC but convicted them for offence under Section 324, 324/34 and 323/34 IPC. 5. At the threshold, the learned counsel for the appellants states that he does not want to challenge the finding of conviction recorded by trial court but he submits that the occurrence has taken place way back in the year 2002. During this period, the accused-appellants have already suffered mental agony & trauma. He further submits that accused-Chaina Ram is at present more than 70 years of age and another two accused are also sons of Chaina Ram. Thus, the whole family was involved by the complainant in the present case. He further submits that since the accused-appellants have already undergone eight days imprisonment, so in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the substantive sentence awarded to the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that there is no occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused-appellants. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record of the case. 8. It is not disputed that the accused appellants are father and sons respectively and occurrence took place way back in the year 2002. During this period, they suffered the mental agony and trauma so also they already undergone eight days' imprisonment. The defence story was that complainant-party were going on a motor-cycle after consuming the liquor and they collided with the tractor so they received the injuries. Looking to the over-all circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial court is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner. 9. In the result, criminal appeal is partly allowed. Looking to the over-all circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial court is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner. 9. In the result, criminal appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the accused-appellant Surrender Kumar for offence under Section 324, 323/34 IPC and of Chaina Ram and Mahendra Kumar for offence under Section 324/34, 323/34 IPC, the sentence awarded to them is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the amount of fine so imposed by the trial court is maintained with default stipulation. The amount of fine will be deposited within a period of two months from today, if not already deposited before the trial court. Accused-appellants are on bail. They need not surrender before the trial court. Their bail bonds stand discharged.