Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 53 (RAJ)

Bhagirath S/o. Bega Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2020-01-04

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the accused appellants. 2. In this criminal appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C., the accused appellants are challenging the judgment dated 26.09.1989 passed by the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Sikar (Raj.) in Criminal Case No.25/1988, whereby the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as under:- Accused Bhagirath & Sultan U/s 323 IPC: Three months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.50/- and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. Accused Richhpal U/s 323 IPC: Three months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.25/- and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. Accused Richhpal U/s 324 IPC: Six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.50/- and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month imprisonment. Accused Richhpal U/s 326 IPC: Two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/- and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months simple imprisonment. Sentence awarded to accused Richhpal shall run concurrently. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants is not challenging the impugned judgment on merit and his prayer is that accused appellants-Bhagirath and Sultan may be granted benefit of probation because injured Richpal and the accused appellants belong to same family and now they are living peacefully and the matter is pending since 1989, the sentence awarded to the accused appellant-Richhpal may be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone, as the accused appellants have remained in judicial custody for sufficient period. Learned counsel in support of has placed reliance upon following judgments:- 1. Mathura Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P., JT 2009 (6) SC 85; 2. Manoj & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, JT 2008 (10) SC 506; and 3. Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, JT 2008 (12) SC 104. 4. The Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the case of Mathura Singh & Ors. (supra) set aside the conviction of the accused therein, holding that the section 323 IPC is compoundable with the consent of injured and compounded the said offence. In Manoj & Anr. (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court while setting aside the judgment of conviction held that the accused and complainant therein, have voluntarily desired to compound offence under section 324 IPC. Permission was given for compounding the said offence and accordingly compounded. 5. In Manoj & Anr. (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court while setting aside the judgment of conviction held that the accused and complainant therein, have voluntarily desired to compound offence under section 324 IPC. Permission was given for compounding the said offence and accordingly compounded. 5. I have also perused the impugned judgment passed by the trial court. The trial court has considered the oral and documentary evidence including the statement of injured witness. Thus, the findings of conviction recorded by the trial court warrant no interference of this Court. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the accused appellants and supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. 7. Learned counsel in addition to the aforesaid submissions submitted that the complainant and accused Richhpal entered into compromise and in this regard, they jointly submitted the application mentioning therein that they are family members and they are also neighbours. Thus, prayed in the said application to attest the said compromise. Learned counsel further submits that despite complainant and accused Richhpal entered into compromise, the trial court did not attest the compromise qua accused appellant-Richhpal. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the case of Ishwar Singh (supra) in para 15 and 16 has observed as under:- “15. In our considered opinion, it would not be appropriate to order compounding of an offence not compoundable under the Code ignoring and keeping aside statutory provisions. In our judgment, however, limited submission of the learned counsel for the appellant deserves consideration that while imposing substantive sentence, the factum of compromise between the parties is indeed a relevant circumstance which, the Court may keep in mind. 16. In the instant case, the incident took place before more than fifteen years; the parties are residing in one and the same village and they are also relatives. The appellant was about 20 years of age at the time of commission of crime. It was his first offence. After conviction, the petitioner was taken into custody. During the pendency of appeal before the High Court, he was enlarged on bail but, after the decision of the High Court, he again surrendered and is in jail at present. Though he had applied for bail, the prayer was not granted and he is not released on bail. After conviction, the petitioner was taken into custody. During the pendency of appeal before the High Court, he was enlarged on bail but, after the decision of the High Court, he again surrendered and is in jail at present. Though he had applied for bail, the prayer was not granted and he is not released on bail. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, in our opinion, ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant (Accused No.1) is reduced to the period already undergone.” 9. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it just and proper to reduce the sentence of imprisonment of accused appellant Richhpal to the period already undergone. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, especially in view of the fact that during investigation and trial accused appellants- Bhagirath and Sultan have remained in judicial custody for sufficient period, the ends of justice will meet if they are released on probation. 10. Instead of sentencing the accused appellants-Bhagirath and Sultan to jail, they shall get the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Further, instead of sentencing them to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment under section 326 IPC, they shall file two sureties to the tune of Rs.25,000/- coupled with personal bonds to the effect that they shall not commit any offence and shall be of good behaviour and shall maintain peace during the period of one year. If there is breach of any of the conditions, they will subject themselves to undergo sentence before the court concerned. The bonds aforesaid be filed before the court concerned by the accused persons within two months from the date of the judgment. 11. So far as accused appellant Richhpal is concerned, the impugned judgment passed by the trial court is upheld but the sentence of imprisonment ordered to accused appellant Richhpal is reduced to the period already undergone. 12. Accordingly, the revision petition filed by the accused petitioners is partly allowed. 13. Registry is directed to send back the record of the case to the court concerned forthwith.