Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 363 (RAJ)

Lalchand v. State

2020-02-12

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2020
JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Garg, J. - Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 09.12.2019 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Pokaran (for short 'the trial court') in Sessions Case No. 05/2017 whereby, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant for offence under Section 304 Part I, 323 and 324 IPC and sentenced as under :- 304 Part I IPC- Ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months R.I. 323 IPC One year R.I and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo one month R.I. 324 IPC Two years' R.I and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo three month's R.I. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Deendayal submitted a written report before the Police Station Pokaran on 03.11.2011 alleging therein that at about 7:30 AM, his neighbour Lalchand who was raising construction of toilet at his house took some stone from the boundary of his brother. When his brother Pukhraj and Paras told him not to take any stone, the accused Lalchand brought a jagger (Dharia) from his house and inflicted blow on the head of Paras. It was alleged that the injured Paras was taken to the hospital but he succumbed to the injuries. 3. The police registered a case against the accused Lalchand and started investigation. The police after investigation, filed a challan against the present appellant for the offences under Sections 302, 324, 323/34 IPC. 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 21 witnesses and various documents were also exhibited. Thereafter, statement of appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. In defence, the accused produced two witnesses. 5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 09.12.2019 convicted the present appellant for offence under Sections 304 Part I, 323, 324 IPC. 6. Thereafter, statement of appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. In defence, the accused produced two witnesses. 5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 09.12.2019 convicted the present appellant for offence under Sections 304 Part I, 323, 324 IPC. 6. At the threshold, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that since the incident relates back to the year 2011 and the accused appellant is behind the bars since 06.11.2011 till date, thus he has already served total sentence of more than eight years in custody out of maximum sentence awarded to him of ten years rigorous imprisonment, therefore, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant for the offence under Section 304 Part I IPC 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. It is not disputed that the appellant has so far undergone a period of 08 years 03 months in custody, so also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. It is also relevant to note that the accused gave a single blow on the head of deceased. 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 304 Part I IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by him. So far as the sentence of fine is concerned, the same is not liable to be interfered with. Similarly, no interference is called for in the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court for offences under Section 323 and 324 IPC because the appellant has already served the sentence for the said offences. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. Similarly, no interference is called for in the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court for offences under Section 323 and 324 IPC because the appellant has already served the sentence for the said offences. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioner's conviction for offence under Section 304 Part I, 323 & 324 IPC, the sentences awarded to him for offence under Section 304 Part I IPC is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. However, the fine imposed by the trial court is hereby maintained alongwith default stipulation.