Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1496 (RAJ)

Khinya Ram, S/o. Sawai Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2023-08-07

FARJAND ALI

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. The appellants have preferred the instant appeal under Section 374 (2) of the CrPC being aggrieved of the judgment dated 17.12.1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.4/1993, whereby the have been convicted for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC and while the appellant No.3 Smt. Madi has been released on probation of 2 years under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act upon furnishing a personal bond and a surety of Rs.3000/-each, the appellant No.1 Khinya Ram and appellant No.2 Teja Ram have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 3 years alongwith a fine of Rs.3,000/-and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 3 months. 2. Succinctly stated, facts of the case are that on 14.02.1992 complainant Ana Ram submitted a written report (Ex.P/14) at the Police Station Bilara to the effect that marriage of his younger brother Chimna Ram's daughter Tulchhai was solemnized with Khinya Ram S/o Sawai Ram, resident of Bhagasani around 4 years ago. As the parents of the girl were financially weak, no dowry or ornaments etc. were given in the marriage, due to which, her matrimonial relatives, namely, mother-in-law Madki, brothers-in-law Taja Ram, Goda Ram and husband Khinya Ram used to beat and harass her for dowry. They threw Tulchhai out of matrimonial home, upon which, she had to live at her parents' house for about 10 months, during which period her father Chimna Ram expired and when her in-laws came in condolence meeting, she was sent with them to matrimonial home. Thereafter too, when she came to Bhawi, she complained regarding harassment for demand of dowry. On the day of lodging the complaint, they came to know that Tulchhai had been killed and her body has been dumped in well. The complainant, Mangla Ram, Lala Ram, Poona Ram, Anna Ram, Mangi Lal and Parta Ram went to Bhagasani and the body of Tulchhai was brought out of well. Number of injuries were visible on her body. The complainant suspected that Madi, Khinya Ram, Teja Ram and Gordhan Ram might had beaten and killed the victim and dumped her body in well. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, FIR No.32/1992 for the offences under Sections 302 and 498-A of the IPC was registered and investigation was commenced. Number of injuries were visible on her body. The complainant suspected that Madi, Khinya Ram, Teja Ram and Gordhan Ram might had beaten and killed the victim and dumped her body in well. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, FIR No.32/1992 for the offences under Sections 302 and 498-A of the IPC was registered and investigation was commenced. After usual investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the present appellants. 4. The learned trial court framed charges against the appellants for the offences under Sections 304-B and in the alternative under Section 306, 498-A of the IPC and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 24 witnesses were examined and 19 documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an explanation was sought from the accused-appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they denied the prosecution allegations and claimed to be innocent. 6 documents were exhibited from defence side, but no witness was examined. Then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner stated above vide judgment dated 17.12.1993, which is under assail before this court in the instant appeal. 5. After arguing on merits to some extent, learned counsel for the appellants does not wish to press the present appeal in respect of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and preferred to make submissions on the point of sentence only. He submits that the incident is of the year 1992. The appellant No.3 Madi has already been granted the benefit of probation. So far as the appellant No.1 Khinya Ram and the appellant No.2 Teja Ram are concerned, they were were 28 and 36 years of age respectively at that time of the incident. At present they are 59 and 67 years of age. They are poor farmers. It was the first criminal case registered against them. No adverse remark has been passed over their conduct in the impugned judgment. They have faced the rigor of criminal case for good 31 years. At present they are 59 and 67 years of age. They are poor farmers. It was the first criminal case registered against them. No adverse remark has been passed over their conduct in the impugned judgment. They have faced the rigor of criminal case for good 31 years. The appellant No.1 has languished in jail for more than 1 month during trial and around 1 month after passing of the impugned judgment, whereas the appellant No.2 has remained incarcerated for around 22 days during trial and around 1 month after passing of the impugned judgment, therefore, the sentence awarded to the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone. 6. Learned public prosecutor has, of course, been able to defend the case on merits but does not refute the fact that the appellants have remained behind the bars for some time and that they are now old aged persons. 7. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public prosecutor and perused the record and other material available on the record. 8. Since the appeal against conviction is not pressed and after perusing the record, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court, this court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained. 9. As far as the question of quantum of sentence is concerned, it is worthwhile to note that the incident is of the year 1992. At the time of the incident, the accused appellant No.1 and 2 were 28 and 36 years of age respectively and now they have turned 59 and 67 respectively. The right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and cherished rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The appellants have already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 31 years and have been in the corridors of the court for this prolonged period. They have remained incarcerated for some time during trial and some time after passing of the impugned judgment. Though they have remained on bail for all these years, but the sword of going back to jail has always been dangling over their head. They have remained incarcerated for some time during trial and some time after passing of the impugned judgment. Though they have remained on bail for all these years, but the sword of going back to jail has always been dangling over their head. The reformative theory of punishment is in vogue in our country and since the appellants are living peacefully since last 31 years as no report contrary to that has been received by this court, thus, it can be assumed that they have been reformed and no fruitful purpose would be served by sending them to jail at this stage as much misery has already been inflicted upon them. 10. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the case of the appellants deserves to be dealt with leniency. The appellants also deserve the benefit of the consistent view taken by this court in this regard. Thus, guided by the judicial pronouncements made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada Das Vs. State of West Bangal reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 and Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2012 2 SCC 648 and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, age of appellants, their criminal antecedents, their status in the society and the fact that they faced financial hardship and had to go through mental agony, this court is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if sentences imposed upon them for each count is reduced to the one already undergone by them. 11. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 17.12.1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.4/1993 is affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned trial court to the appellant No.1 Khinya Ram and the appellant No.2 Teja Ram for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC is modified to the extent that the sentence they have undergone till date would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of justice. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are discharged. 12. The appeal of the appellant No.1 Khinya Ram and the appellant No.2 Teja Ram is allowed in part. The appeal of the appellant No.3 Smt. Madi is dismissed as the judgment of conviction is maintained and she has already been granted the benefit of probation by the trial court. 13. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are discharged. 12. The appeal of the appellant No.1 Khinya Ram and the appellant No.2 Teja Ram is allowed in part. The appeal of the appellant No.3 Smt. Madi is dismissed as the judgment of conviction is maintained and she has already been granted the benefit of probation by the trial court. 13. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of. 14. Record be sent back to the trial court.