Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2167 (RAJ)

Bhaira Ram v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-08-01

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2022
JUDGMENT Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - Instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of IPC against the impugned judgment dated 21.09.1991 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh Camp Suratgarh in Sessions Case No. 34/86. Vide judgment dated 21.09.1991, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Section Sentence Section 304 Pt. II I.P.C. 7 years R.I. and Fine of Rs. 500/- and in default further 3 months R.I. 2. The present appeal arises out of the incident which happened on 25.03.1986 at Dera situated at Bypass Road, Suratgarh. An FIR was registered under Section 307, 323, 147, 149 & 382 of IPC against the appellant. In the incident, Nathuram sustained injuries and during treatment, he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the incident and therefore, Section 302 of IPC was also added. The charge-sheet in the case was filed and the trial court after undertaking the trial proceedings, convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences. Against the order dated 21.09.1991 passed by the trial court, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the incident occurred in the heat of passion after a heated altercation between the appellant and deceased Nathuram. He further submits that there was no intention to cause fatal injuries by the appellant as there were no repetition of the blows. He submits that even the gandasi used in inflicting the injury was hit from the reverse side, which clearly shows that appellant had not intention to cause fatal injuries to deceased Nathuram. 4. Learned counsel further submits that even as per the testimony of eye-witnesses P.W. 3-Manaram & P.W. 4 Balaram, it has come on record that the gandasi was used by the petitioner for inflicting the injury on Nathuram from the reverse side and there were no repetition of blows. 5. 4. Learned counsel further submits that even as per the testimony of eye-witnesses P.W. 3-Manaram & P.W. 4 Balaram, it has come on record that the gandasi was used by the petitioner for inflicting the injury on Nathuram from the reverse side and there were no repetition of blows. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant, without joining the issues on merit, submits that the incident is of the year 1986 and after conviction more than 31 years have passed and the appellant Bhaira Ram has already undergone a sentence of 10 months and 13 days, therefore, he prays that taking into consideration the time lapsed after the incident, without making any interference on the merits/conviction passed by the learned trial court, the sentence awarded to the appellants may be substituted to the period of sentence already undergone by him. 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 Manaram, 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. 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-Bhaira Ram has already undergone a sentence of 10 months and 13 days and on reading of the testimony of P.W. -3 Manaram & P.W. 4 Balaram, is convinced that the prayer of the learned 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-Bhaira Ram under Section 304 Pt. II 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 Manaram (if he is alive and if not, to his legal heirs) thereafter. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bond stand discharged accordingly. 10. If the accused-appellant fail 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.