Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2052 (RAJ)

Jairam v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-07-19

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2022
JUDGMENT Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - At the outset, learned Sr. Counsel submits that appellant No. 1 Jairam has died during the pendency of the present appeal, therefore, the appeal of appellant No. 1 Jairam stands abated. 2. Instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of IPC against the impugned judgment dated 06.12.1991 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 4/90. Vide judgment dated 06.12.1991, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section as under:- Section Sentence Section 304 Pt. II r/w Section 34 IPC Seven years R.I. 3. The present appeal arises out of the incident which occurred on 27.11.1989 and for which, FIR was registered on 27.11.1989 itself. After the trial, the learned court below convicted the appellant as above vide its judgment dated 06.12.1991. Appellant was arrested on 01.12.1989. Appellant Hanumanram was granted bail on 09.04.1991. After conviction, the appellant Hanumanram has suffered incarceration for almost 17 months. 4. Learned Sr. counsel for the appellant submits that the incident occurred at the spur of the moment on the very trivial issue as the deceased asked for repayment of amount of Rs. 200 borrowed by the accused persons and after a heated altercation, the incident occurred in which Jagmal Ram died on account of the injuries suffered in the incident. 5. Learned Sr. Counsel submits that without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the appellant may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him as period of more than 32 years have lapsed after the incident, and the appellant is now aged about 52 years. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions and in alternate, he submits that a fine be imposed upon the appellant, which may be directed to be released to the complainant Fagluram (who is father of the deceased), or his legal heirs. 7. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in, Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das v. State of W.B. (1998) 9 SCC 678 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra) "There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances." Haripada Das (Supra) "...considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone..." 8. This Court on conjoint reading of the facts and considering the manner in which the incident had taken place, on the spur of the moment without any intention to cause any fatal injury and the fact that the appellant has already undergone 17 months of incarceration and on reading of the testimony of P.W. 1 Fagluram, P.W. 2 Smt. Panchi, P.W. 5 Bharmalram, P.W. 7 Smt. Chunni, P.W. 9 Bidami & P.W. 12 Dr. Vijay Kumar Verma, is convinced that the prayer of the learned Sr. Counsel for the appellant merits acceptance subject to imposition of a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) upon the appellant. 9. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the appellant, and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the present appeal is partly allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Pt. II r/w Section 34 IPC, as above, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him and a fine to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. The fine amount shall be deposited before the learned trial court within a period of three months from today and the same shall be released to the complainant Fagluram (if he is alive and if not, to his legal heirs) thereafter. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. 10. 50,000/-. The fine amount shall be deposited before the learned trial court within a period of three months from today and the same shall be released to the complainant Fagluram (if he is alive and if not, to his legal heirs) thereafter. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. 10. If the accused-appellant fails to deposit the aforesaid amount within the stipulated period granted to him by this Court, he is liable to undergo additional sentence of six months' simple imprisonment. 11. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.