Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1551 (RAJ)

Heera Lal S/o. Hasta Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2023-08-17

FARJAND ALI

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. The instant appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused-appellants against the judgment dated 15.09.1998 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Sessions Case No.27/1998 whereby the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as under:- Name of the accused Offence for which convicted Substantive sentence Fine and default sentence Heera Lal Section 451 IPC Six months’ RI Fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days RI Section 323 IPC Three months’ RI Fine of Rs.50/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 7 days RI Smt. Pushpa Section 326 IPC Seven years’ RI Fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days RI Section 451 IPC Six months’ RI Fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days RI All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original imprisonment. 2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that a report (Ex.P/9) came to be lodged on 15.10.1997, which was based on the statement of one Lala Ram recorded by the ASI of Police Station Coatgate, Bikaner. It was alleged that the deceased Lala Ram and the appellants’ family are close relatives and there was a discord between them; on the day of incident suddenly appellants pelted stones in the house of Lalaram upon which, he came out of the room and received injuries. On raising protest, the appellant Pushpa and all other accused persons namely Heeralal and Rupa Devi gave beating to him by fists and kicks; the appellant Pushpa poured hot water on his waist as a consequence of which, his lumber suffered with blisters. After chalking out the FIR (Ex.P/9) the investigation was commenced and during the course of treatment, on 17.10.1997, victim Lalaram died thus, offence under Section 302 IPC was added and after thorough investigation, appellant Pushpa was chargesheeted for the offence under Sections 302, 451 and 336 of the IPC and rest of the accused Heeralal and Rupa Devi were charge sheeted for the offence under Sections 302/34, 451 and 336 of the IPC and the trial commenced. 3. 3. After taking cognizance and framing of charges, as many as 10 witnesses were examined and 19 documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution. Thereafter, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they abjured the allegations and adduced two witnesses in defence. After affording opportunity of hearing to the counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused Roopa Devi whereas, accused Heerlal and Pushpa Devi were acquitted for offence under Sections 302/34 and 336 of the IPC however, convicted the accused Heera Lal for the offence under Sections 451 and 323 of the IPC and Smt. Pushpa for offence under Sections 326 and 451 of the IPC and both were sentenced as mentioned in para No.1 of the judgment. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants after arguing the matter to some extent does not press the judgment of conviction and seeks benevolence on the point of sentence only. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions advanced by the appellants’ counsel and submits that the learned trial Court has passed a well reasoned therefore, no interference is called for by this Court. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor and scrutinized the record of the case. 7. For the purpose of satisfaction, I have minutely gone through the evidence brought on record and find no illegality or misappreciation of evidence in the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court, the same does not require interference of this Court. Thus, the appeal is dismissed to the extent of finding of guilt and judgment of conviction is maintained. 9. So far as the question of order of sentence is concerned, the parties are closed relatives and were living in a close area; neither there was any intend to inflict serious injuries nor the animosity was of so serious degree, so as to instigate them to commit an offence under Section 326 of the IPC; no weapon was used by the by the appellants in commission of offence; they have not any previous criminal antecedents; as per the memos issued during investigation, in the year 1997, appellants Heeralal and Smt. Pushpa were aged about 30 years and 26 years. Now, after 26 years have lapsed and she has become more older; they remained in jail for few days during investigation and trial and whereafter about two months post conviction, therefore, after lapse of 26 years I do not find it justifiable to send them back to the jail. Thus, in my humble view, the sentence suffered by them till date and rigor of trial which they faced, would be sufficient enough to meet the ends of justice; they have good case for reduction of sentence, therefore, the sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone. 10. 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. 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…” 11. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the appellants and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the present appeal is partly allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of appellant Heera Lal under Sections 451 & 323 of the IPC and appellant Pushpa under Sections 326 & 451 IPC, the sentences awarded to them are reduced to the period already undergone by them. The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. 12. Application for Suspension of Sentence and all pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. 12. Application for Suspension of Sentence and all pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. Record of the learned Court below be sent back forthwith.