Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2128 (RAJ)

Hardeva Ram v. State

2022-07-27

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment, dated 24.01.1990, passed by the learned Court below in Sessions Case No. 3/89 whereby the appellants herein were convicted for the offences under Sections 307, 326, 324 and 450 I.P.C. and sentenced to 3 years R.I. along with a fine of Rs.50/-in default of payment of which he was to further undergo 1 month R.I., 2½ years along with a fine of Rs.50/-in default of payment of which he was to further undergo 1 month R.I., 1 year R.I. and 2 years R.I., respectively. All the sentences were to run concurrently. 2. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant praying that the appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment dated 24.01.1990 passed by the learned Sessions Court below in Sessions Case 3/89 be quashed and set aside, and the appellant be acquitted of all the charges for the offences levelled against him therein. 3. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1988 and the present criminal appeal has been pending since the year 1990. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the sentence so awarded to the appellant was suspended by this Hon’ble Court, vide order dated 05.02.1990 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 53/1990. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that it is the version of the prosecution that on 01.11.1988 Smt. Vora Ramjeevan Kumhar at about 04:00 a.m. at Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur submitted a written report, at Ex. P/4, stating therein that, on the previous night at about 12:00 a.m. the accused broke into her residence at Masooria, Santoshpura, where she was living along with her husband and her grand daughter. And that, when he tried to enter her grand daughter’s room, she ran out shouting, and intimated Smt. Vora that the accused was armed with a knife. And that, the accused Hardeva Ram threatened to kill her granddaughter Ranjana, and stabbed her with the knife, and subsequently fled the scene. And that, Smt. Vora and her husband took Ranjana in a taxi to M.G.M hospital, Jodhpur for treatment. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the testimony of the granddaughter Ranjana, P.W. 6 reveals that the appellant and her grandmother Smt. Vora were neighbours and maintained coordial relations. And that, Smt. Vora and her husband took Ranjana in a taxi to M.G.M hospital, Jodhpur for treatment. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the testimony of the granddaughter Ranjana, P.W. 6 reveals that the appellant and her grandmother Smt. Vora were neighbours and maintained coordial relations. And that, however there was some dispute regarding the wall between their houses, but that she was not involved in the same. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the testimony further reveals that the appellant did not threaten Ranjana on the day of the incident in question, and in the absence of any knowledge or intention on the part of the accused, the offences under Sections 307 and 326 I.P.C. are not made out against the appellant as the fundamental ingredient of intention, as required under the said section, is absent. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the incident in question occurred on the land in dispute between the appellant and Smt. Vora, to which both said parties staked claims of ownership, and that the appellant was armed with a knife on the day of the incident, and that Smt. Vora’s grandchildren, Ranjana and Sunil were attempting to take the knife out of his hand, at which point Ranjana sustained an injury. And that, the version of Smt. Vora that the incident occurred inside her house has not been proved by the prosecution. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the testimony of P.W.5 Dr. Dharmendra reveals that the injuries were not dangerous to life. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, makes a limited submission that without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present revisionist-petitioner(s) may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him. 11. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and submits that the learned Court below has rightly passed the impugned judgment of conviction against the accused appellant herein. 12. Heard learned counsel for both parties, and perused the record of the case. 13. 11. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and submits that the learned Court below has rightly passed the impugned judgment of conviction against the accused appellant herein. 12. Heard learned counsel for both parties, and perused the record of the case. 13. This Court finds that the learned Court below has rightly proceeded with the conviction of the appellant, after recording the following findings :- 13.1 The appellant contended that there were no independent witnesses produced to corroborate the version of the prosecution, could not be accepted as it would not be possible given that the incident occurred at about midnight, and given that the incident transpired in a short time span, an adverse inference could not be drawn to the fact that no other neighbours came out of their house / intervened / saw what had happened. 13.2 Furthermore, the injury sustained by Ranjana, is a deep stab wound to her abdominal area, as revealed by the medical evidence, and therefore the version of the appellant, that the injury was sustained by Ranjana as an accidental result of the attempt made to take the knife away from him, is not believable as the same is highly unlikely. 13.3. Moreover, the F.I.R. was lodged hours within the occurrence of the incident from the hospital, and it was the contention of the appellant that the incident did not occur inside the house, but the same is rendered untrue, as a high volume of Ranjana’s blood as found outside her room inside the house, as was averred by Smt. Vora, and the same would not have been the case had the incident occurred outside the house as alleged by the appellant. 14. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in, Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. 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. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. 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. 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…” 15. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of appellant, and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the present appeal is partly allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining the appellant’s conviction under Sections 307, 326, 324 and 450 I.P.C. as above, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The appellant is on bail, in pursuance of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court on dated 05.02.1990 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 53/1990. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged. 16. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned below be sent back forthwith.